Huizenga College of Business Marketing Blog: The power of sponsor love

The power of sponsor love

Apr 17

posted by Dr. Maria Petrescu in Branding | 63 Comments

Staying with a problem athlete is not an easy decision for businesses and many times it proves to be a very costly one. For example, in 2009, when the Tiger Woods cheating on his wife scandal broke out, in just a couple of months, major sponsor companies such as Nike experienced a decline on the stock market in the order of billions, attributable to the scandal, according to the Wall Street Journal. Time has passed and Nike stuck with him, and even helped Tiger create the famous “apology” commercial. Nike didn’t stay beside Oscar Pistorius after he was arrested or with Marion Jones after the steroid scandal. The brand is still alongside tennis superstar Maria Sharapova, despite the 2-year ban from competition for using meldonium.

Speedo also supported their star athlete Michael Phelps through his marijuana and DUI adventures, only for him to ditch them in 2016 for a new company. What Speedo would have loved to know beforehand is probably Ryan Lochte’s storytelling skills, for the whole robbery saga that was created at the Rio Olympics. The company did drop him, together with his other sponsors, before any official legal charges were made. So where is the difference? What are the criteria used for making the decision whether to continue supporting an athlete?

First, you can easily add the word “star” before the name of every athlete sponsors continued to support even in a moment of crisis. Woods, Sharapova and Phelps are all superstars and champions in their sports and overall.

Second, it is usually about the nature of the offense, how consumers perceive it and the degree of negative attitude it receives. The Jones and Pistorius scandals were unforgivable and unforgettable, something not good for a brand. The Lochte scandal appears to easily go away (he is on Dancing with the stars); however, Speedo wanted to be able to fully take advantage of the positive aspects of the Olympics and not have consumers distracted.

Third, it is also about the length of the relationship, the sentimental connection. Athletes like Tiger Woods and Sharapova have worked since their debut with Nike, making the company a lot of money and also establishing rapport with the organization. It is not easy to let a lifetime of happy and profitable relationship go away, even in business. Unless consumers signal that time has come.

Image source: WVUsports.com, 2017

Maria Petrescu, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at mpetresc@nova.edu

This entry was posted on April 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM and has received 5808 views. There are currently 63 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Comments

(Comment Moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until approved.)

[Add Comment] [Subscribe to Comments]

#1 by Phoenix Pop Productions on 4/27/17 - 3:18 PM

Soccer super-stars like Messi (Adidas) and Christiano Ronaldo (Nike) have also seen roller coaster rides. Great article.
#2 by Mike Olivier on 5/17/17 - 11:09 AM

Good article. I agree with the relationship describe between the sponsors and athletes. Very interested in this article because I hope to one day have a career in the sport entertainment industry. At the end of the day, sponsors support the athletes who can give the biggest return. You mention Nike didn’t stay beside Marion Jones but she might still have other sponsors.
#3 by Natalia Carvajal on 5/17/17 - 10:53 PM

I completely agree to the closing statement of the author of this post. It is unless the consumer’s signal that the time has come that companies may decide to drop or keep sponsoring some athletes. With the rise of technology, digital and social media news have shown to travel at the speed of light and with it the reaction of consumers. This allows companies to be smarter on how to treat scandals (if they are aware and react quickly of course). On the last scandal from Pepsi about one of their latest commercial they were able to measure the reaction of their consumers and apologize to them fast enough to not lose them. Other company’s such was the case of United airlines with the video of a passenger that got beat up went viral. The company thought they could outsmart the opinion of its customers and ended up paying for their mistakes with a loss of millions of dollars and the loyalty of many of their travelers. This shows that consumers definitely have the last word and that companies must be willing to hear them if they want to keep their loyalty.
#4 by Naser Al Doseri on 5/17/17 - 11:30 PM

This is a great article which shows us the strong relationship between the sponsors and athletes. Even if there were scandals made by athletes still sponsors stick with them. On other word, sponsors measure the impact of the athlete’s scandal on the society along with revenues earned by sponsoring the athlete. If the impact on the society considered minor and still generating revenues they will continue sponsoring the athletes.
#5 by Yevgeniya Green on 5/17/17 - 11:48 PM

Great article, Large companies have been sponsoring athletes for decades and depending on their name recognition and stardom will depend on what these sponsors are willing tolerate. The level of the crime also plays a role however my belief is that it all comes down to monetary rewards. In the case of Tiger Woods, he has earned Nike billions of dollars and even more on Brand recognition where Nike can take a loss of several hundred million temporarily in order to earn several billion more when the commotion slows down. In the case of athletes without such famous names like Lochte, brands cannot be so forgiving and cut their losses because there is nothing left to gain. The person had not yet reached a certain level of stardom. Companies hire consultants and marketers to do their thorough analysis on their investments and in this case it all comes down to name recognition and sustainability.
#6 by Renato on 5/18/17 - 9:32 AM

This is a very interesting article and in my opinion sponsors should NEVER stay alongside stars after wrong doings. These stars are idolized and regardless of the attitude that’s perceived, it’s a privilege. Kids in our generations wear a certain brand because of an athlete, therefore, if the brand is okay with certain behavior, what does that tell kids in our generation to look up to?
#7 by Allyson Arias on 5/18/17 - 10:15 AM

I agree with this post companies like Nike and speed promote a certain image and depending on what the athlete does is whether the brand would keep them or not. Also, how famous is the athlete some if not all superstar athletes mess up but brands need to figure out whether one the mess up is too big to come back from and two if the superstar after that will still remain a superstar.
#8 by Nicholas Portlance on 5/18/17 - 10:44 AM

This is a very real threat of entering into a marriage with a celebrity sponsor. I’m sure Jello was glad that Bill Cosby wasn’t selling pudding pops recently, or they might have experienced a similar situation. What seems interesting is a trend for companies to move away from a single celebrity endorsement and jump on the power of bloggers and social media to engage with customers. I have a friend who works for a major corporation who does have some celebrity sponsors. However, for their newest product launch the company decided to put the product in the hands of bloggers, reviewers, and other online media outlets to generate product adoption. They were in talks with some big-name NBA players to sponsor the product, but ultimately made the decision to move in the other direction. I think this is a much safer bet and certainly more cost-effective. Instead of pinning your company image to an individual who will have emotional responses from customers (either good or bad), you allow your brand image to be controlled by the company and break away more freely.
#9 by ANDRES PARRA on 5/18/17 - 12:10 PM

Some Athletes or superstars become the image of the company. They work as a channel to create engagement with the audience or even catch the attention of potential clients. But why sometimes companies drop them for scandals and why other times they don't? First, it is about how much involved is the athlete with the brand, some of them are so involved with it that they are seen as the image of the brand, on the other hand, when they participate just in few commercials or are starting their agreement whit the brand is easy to "drop" them. Second, another factor that is directly related to the reaction of the brand is the power of influence from the athlete, people as Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi, Connor McGregor, and others, are the top of their sports so people tend to be more "protective" of them, and of course, they have a bigger number of fans. Third, is not that simple to leave aside an athlete, today is all about engagement, and if a company decides to drop an agreement with a superstar at the first time something goes wrong would leave much to say about the culture of the organization. In conclusion, normally, companies are following the money, and all the decisions are taken from a perspective to protect the image of the brand.
#10 by Ashley Duncan on 5/18/17 - 4:38 PM

Consumers definitely have an impact in the follow up actions of sponsors after any form of controversy and that is very important in the decision making process. Therefore, I strongly agree with the the final sentence stated in the article. Furthermore, sponsorship is important and athletes should work hard to maintain a positive social influence and image. Nevertheless, it is oftentimes difficult for some of these stars to keep their personal challenges under wraps and away from the public eye. In that case, it is beneficial when sponsors work with these individuals and grant a second chance such as the case with Tiger Woods and Michael Phelps. In addition, in some cases these stars are only dropped at the onset of the turmoil to preserve the company's image and are often given another chance later on in their career. Such as the case with Chris Brown. He lost numerous sponsors and was dropped from appearances for his case with Rihanna in 2009. However, in 2016, he won an AMA for Favorite Soul/R&B Male Artist. The gift of a second chance seems to be essential and necessary in the sponsorship industry regardless if it is an athlete or music artists.
#11 by Jennifer Schott on 5/18/17 - 8:39 PM

Besides long last thing relationships I believe that consumer’s reaction to the scandal guide what companies like Nike and Adidas do with Pro athletes. In the case of Michael Vick, Nike dropped him instantly because it became a scandal on animal rights. In Tiger Woods and Sherapova case it only affected them personally so Nike probably didn’t feel the need to drop either one.
#12 by Melissa Hernandez on 5/18/17 - 8:57 PM

Good article. But I felt there is so much more one could write. Money definitely plays a huge role in whether a company will continue to sponsor an athlete in turbulent times. Nike couldn't have dropped Tiger Woods so quickly, being that he was with them for so long. I don't believe it was the sentimental value that NIKE had towards him, but rather the negative image it might give NIKE dropping one of their biggest athletes when he didn't do anything illegal (yes it was disgusting, but still he didn't kill anyone like Pistorious). Phelps will go down as the most decorated Olympian and Speedo was right to stay with him, although they probably should've tried a little harder to keep him
#13 by Hamad Alyami on 5/19/17 - 2:02 PM

Intersting article about hw sponsors support their "Star", no matter what happen between the sponsor and the athelet it doesn't stop on one company, I am sure there will be others who want to sponsor athletes to build up their reputation. Also the athlete will be compensated with lots of money for doing commercials for the company.
#14 by Jennia Kneissle on 5/19/17 - 4:57 PM

Very interesting article. In my opinion it is sad that some companies are still supporting athletes who had unforgivable scandals. From a ethical perspective it is just not right, even it may lead to profit maximization for the company.
#15 by Bianca Simmons on 5/19/17 - 6:27 PM

It is my thoughts that the partnership and ties between Athlete and Sponsor is easily discontinued when the Athlete is African American. Not in all cases has this been true, but from what I have seen in the majority of them its my feelings that race plays a major issue. I think as humans we all make mistakes,but somehow have placed movie stars, athlete's, TV personal, etc. on this imaginary pedestal where instead of being seen as "normal" they are "super human". Having money and fame does not exclude anyone from the day to day living and mistakes that any person could make going through life.
#16 by Joseph Kaplan on 5/19/17 - 9:01 PM

This is a fascinating article. A lot of big companies have celebrities or professional athletes as their ambassadors. We have seen cases where the big enterprises end a business relationship with the celebrity or athlete due to a wrongdoing on behalf of the athlete. We have also see cases where the brand remained loyal to the celebrity or athlete despite the wrongdoing. Either way companies must assess the risk involved with having a suspect celebrity or athlete endorse their brand because depending on the brand reputation of the company, the choice of ending that relationship could prove beneficial in the long run.
#17 by Kridtiya Thammajaro on 5/20/17 - 12:11 AM

This article makes me think about everyday life. No one is perfect and everyone could make a mistake. One thing I would like to recommend is checking the athlete information detail in the past before the company decides to hire them. Even it couldn't protect the future problem, it can decrease it.
#18 by Rose Muselaire on 5/20/17 - 11:09 AM

This article shows us the influence between an athlete and its sponsors. With the help of social media sponsors can see how much of an impact the athlete’s scandal has had on society and how much has the athlete has generated for them and how long have they been with the company before deciding whether to drop the athlete. I also believe the severity of the scandal has an enormous impact on whether a company drop or keep an athlete as a sponsor. With Michael Phelps, the severity of his scandal was in my opinion was not a big deal at all so, Speedo was right to stay with him.
#19 by Sarah cole on 5/20/17 - 11:37 AM

I enjoyed this article and I agree with the statement made that the athlete’s “star” power is the deciding factor in whether or not to continue sponsoring the athlete. Tiger Woods and Michael Phelps were both well-known names well before their scandals broke out. Given their talent and recognition, it is easy for the public to forget that these events took place. In the case of Ryan Lochte, he became known for his scandal. There is no inventive to keep him because he is not known at this point for his swimming ability, but for being a liar. The sponsor would never see a return on its investment.
While I do not agree that the length of the professional relationship can save any athlete from being dropped if the offence is so massive that time or public relations work can save it, I do agree that the nature of the offence and how the consumer perceives it also can be a driving factor in that decision. Maria Sharapova can be easily forgiven because the general public may not recognize the drug meldonium, whereas steroids is extremely distasteful because the public clearly realizes that this a performance enhancing drug.
Basically, the decision to keep or cut a sponsor lies in the public perception of the indiscretion. Can it be forgiven or forgotten, then it is work the continued investment as there will be a return on that investment.
#20 by Innocent Laurent on 5/20/17 - 2:49 PM

One of the best way to sell a product image to the market is using a celebrity as brand character in the process. The core communication for any brand to reach the heart of the consumers is to use a celebrity with well-established personality to promote a product. Being for a company to stick with that celeb after any scandals may depend on various aspect. first, to gain the consumers heart it is imperative that the company gain the trust through the quality of the product, price. Once, the credibility is affected that can have a significant impact on customers. The intensity of the impact will depend on How long and solid it the relationship between the celeb and the company. In any win-win deal, the company won’t cut ties with the celeb. Second, the level of maturity of the celeb and the amount of years serving the public, also an impact of the decision. for a longtime service celeb with high credibility who the public love, a scandal won’t affect significant the deals with the company.
#21 by Brandon Conte on 5/21/17 - 9:50 AM

It's difficult for a company to decide whether to abandon a superstar or to stay the course. It will largely depend on two things: capital invested in the athlete and the severity of the infraction. Certain screw-ups are unforgiveable such as Pistorius's murder of his wife. Phelps's marijuana use is hardly even a big deal this day in age. Regardless, these are multi-million dollar decisions that companies must make on a day to day basis.
#22 by Susan Duarte on 5/21/17 - 6:12 PM

I found this article very interesting, I did not put much thought into how big companies went about either forgiving or dropping the athletes they endorse after scandals take place. It certainly makes sense to stick with those athletes that have been around longer and have made the company the most money, but in my opinion the severity of the scandal should be the biggest factor.
#23 by Lubabah A. Chwdhury on 5/21/17 - 7:13 PM

When athletes get famous and loved by the public, regardless of many scandals, there are some diehard fans who always stay loyal to their favorite choice of an athlete. Similarly, when a brand hooks itself up with an athlete in order to advertise their brand, they make a lot of business by using the face of a star athlete and even when a scandal occurs, brands tend to not forget the contribution made by the star athlete in the brand.
#24 by Julian Garcia on 5/21/17 - 8:44 PM

In today’s world, big companies are always trying close sponsorships deals with super starts in different sport with the intention to generate more revenue for the company. Also, it is a good method to project the image of the company and engage more people with the brand thought these athletes that represent them. Nonetheless, it is very difficult for big companies like Nike or Adidas to prevent that these super stars do not get involves in acts or behaviors that directly affect the overall image of the brand. But what act or behavior would make a company drop or cut the sponsorship of these athletes? In my opinion one of the first factors is monetary because people tend to forget scandals very fast and even sometimes depending on the type of act, it can actually boost the sales and recognition of the brand indirectly. In addition, most likely these sponsorship contracts have a condition that depending on the type of act or behavior if sponsor decides to cancel their contract, they might have to compensate the athlete. In conclusion, I believe that if these companies decide to drop the sponsor of one their athletes a big portion of the decision relays on monetary stipulation of the scandal and then other factors.
#25 by Yanin Mesa on 5/21/17 - 10:08 PM

Great perspective on why companies choose to support athletes amidst scandal that may have negative repercussions for the brand’s image. While I understand it is a business decision, and the consequences depend on the act itself. I do not agree that companies should continue the business relationship with the embattled individual. Yes, there is a difference between an adulterer and a murder; however; both are not appropriate behavior. Furthermore, these athletes become role models for children and young adults. The message conveyed should not be that certain actions while wrong are permissible and others are not.
#26 by Bruno Natteri on 5/21/17 - 11:27 PM

I find this article very interesting. The decision of the major sports brands to continue to work with an athlete who has committed a serious infraction should not be an easy task to evaluate. Many variables must be involved in order to determine whether to continuing with the athlete can cost more than to let them go. When deciding whether or not a brand should continue working with an athlete, brands should be taking two major things into consideration: the relationship level of the athlete and the brand as well as the infraction committed or scandal associated with the athlete. However, the final decision is ultimately one that is decided with great judgement and not one taken lightly.
#27 by Whitney Mahon on 5/22/17 - 1:25 AM

Before I could finish reading this article, one word came into mind; Utilitarianism. Basically, if an action produces more good than bad it is moral. And if an action produces more bad than good, it is immoral. Unfortunately, these scenarios presented in the article will never change; these situations always occur. The author is accurate, well-known and worldwide champions are easily forgivable depending on the immorality of their behavior. Somethings are forgivable and it gets pardoned, for example the DUI, the drugs, and the cheating. These are all too common errors made by many stars and many individuals. Sponsors will not drop superstars for those mistakes. These champions generate revenue for them, they have established long-term relationships. However, sponsors do have a brand to maintain and anything more immoral such as death or steroids cannot be accepted. Overall, it depends on how the sponsors perceive the athlete, and their willingness to stand beside the athlete.
#28 by Orlando on 5/22/17 - 11:35 AM

Very good post, I like the idea of a relationship between companies and their athletes. Also, it was a great connection with the length of the contract and how big the athletes were. I agree that on cases like Tiger Woods, the relationship was so long, so profitable, and he is such a incredible player that “taking” the risk of keeping him and trying to recreate his brand and continue to generate profits was a strategy that has the potential to be successful.
#29 by Carmen Mondesir on 5/22/17 - 1:54 PM

This article holds a very interesting topic that is not thought to talk about often, yet very relevant. We see “stars” getting endorsements all the time. Although, we don’t stop to think if he or she may get into so trouble that they could lose their sponsors. Just like most businesses don’t necessarily stop to think about the future actions of someone they hand over a contact to. The article was straight to the point when i came to the reasons behind what determines an athlete getting dropped or not. Let's take Lebron James vs a bench player for example. Sadly, if they both committed the same crime, Lebron would most likely be kept verses a regular athlete.
#30 by Mythsuka Louis on 5/22/17 - 5:56 PM

there are many factors to be considered when deciding to drop a 'start' from a company. Some celebrities are sweethearts that grew up in front of the world and are easier to forgive. there are also some heinous crimes that can never be forgiven. depends on many different factors and how the rest of the world views that particular crime and person.
#31 by Marlyn Boada on 5/22/17 - 6:10 PM

Great post. I’ve always wondered what “criteria” a company uses when deciding to drop a sponsorship. One would think when an athlete commits a crime or has a scandal, the sponsor would drop them. But the examples outlined in this article show otherwise. I slightly agree with the third criteria described—the length of the relationship. I could imagine it being very difficult for a sponsor to drop an athlete who has made the company a lot of money. But at the same time, I believe the brand/image is more important than any amount of money. The actions of athletes can tarnish the image of a brand.
#32 by Benson Prospere on 5/22/17 - 7:02 PM

Great post which answered the couple of questions that I've had in regards of the dealings with endorsements and their star athletes. Business seems to be the relevancy of all ties no matter the trouble that takes place, unless it’s absolutely a conflict which can’t be swept under the rug or be punishable through our law system. The relationship between the sponsors and the stars are the underlying factor of the profitable income that tends to rise on occasional basis, so in other words there can be an argument made for mixing friendship with business.
#33 by Mahesak Emaruchi on 5/22/17 - 7:25 PM

Celebrity marketing is one of the fastest ways for companies to create brand image in the minds of consumers. In my point of view, I really agree with Nike staying beside Tiger Wood. In business, It does not matter what Tiger did something wrong with his wife. Tiger is still one of best golf player ever, so consumers still believe in Nike. They believe that if they use Nike products, they can be good at golf like Tiger. No one will think if they use Nike product, they will cheat on their wife like him.
#34 by Raquel Selechnik on 5/22/17 - 7:52 PM

Great article. It is a different perspective I had never thought of. I never wondered what makes a brand continue supporting an athlete or not after a scandal blows out. I completely agree with Petrescu’s view on the matter stating that a lot of it has to do with how consumers perceive it and what their attitude is towards it. I think it all goes back to really understanding who your audience is in order to know how unacceptable the degree of the offense made by the “star” is to them. So it is not really about the difference between the scandals as it is in the difference in the reactions of the audience following the brand.
#35 by LUIS V CARDONA on 5/22/17 - 9:26 PM

When it comes to the relationship between sponsors and their sponsored customers, I also believe this is based on the status of their athletes but is mainly driven by the profitability of the relationship between the athletes and the company. In addition, as implied in the blog post, I think there is a limit of consumers when it comes to the image a company is trying to portrait as these should be representative of the customer values, especially for newer generations.
#36 by Crina Manea on 5/23/17 - 3:06 AM

The article not only offers the perspective of “where does the love end?” , equally important is “where does it begin?” It is interesting to note that the mitigating circumstances of athlete sponsorship and support are multifaceted and complex. Every problem that athletes find themselves is always have consequences. But in the eyes of the endorsement companies and sponsors not all athletes are created equal. Yes, the public perceptions and boycott power do have gravitas. This never escapes the “Brands” consideration of whether or not to drop the athlete.
#37 by Amira Bendrif on 5/23/17 - 8:26 AM

It’s a very interesting article. Being an athlete for many years, I can tell that one of the athlete's goals is getting a sponsor. Celebrity marketing is a tactic featuring a famous person to offer an endorsement of a product. Those celebrities do not need to be international superstars, they only need to be familiar to the target audience. And sometimes, if the celebrity causes a scandal, the sponsor stay beside that person. On other word, sponsors may generate a great profit from that act, unless it impact the customer’s relationship.
#38 by Luz Sanchez on 5/23/17 - 8:30 AM

While I agree with the article as a whole, it could also be argued that the popularity of the “troubled athlete” tends to play a role in the decision making process of large corporations as to whether or not the athlete merits redemption. Companies like Nike, Reebok and Adidas, to name a few, know that the way to reach customers and produce potential sales, is by placing a face to the brand. That being said, in this day and age of “political correctness” corporations will quickly end the relationship between them and the athlete and distance themselves accordingly if unwritten lines are crossed no matter how popular the athlete is. The old saying “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” doesn’t apply in many of these cases. It could be the determining factor in the success or failure of any company.
#39 by Vicky Saget on 5/23/17 - 2:38 PM

This article is very interesting yet relevant . When a star athlete has committed a crime or has done something socially unacceptable we often hear that it resulted in being dropped by their sponsor companies. What is not often considered is why the separation may have been the best terms for the companies image and reputation . This article encourages further consideration of the risk a sponsor such as Nike might assume by continuing to support a star who is under fire for misconduct.
#40 by Abraao Pinheiro on 5/23/17 - 4:35 PM

This is a difficult and "blurry" situation where it's hard to draw the line. Companies will inevitably lose something when a scandal involving a sponsored athlete arise. Each situation is different and demands a a different approach to damage control.

I believe that, besides the scandals involving criminal offenses, the Lochte scandal in Rio was one of the worst and the brand had no other choice but to pull sponsorship because, unlike the doping and the Tiger Woods affairs this one offended an entire nation. It evoked discrimination. Should Speedo have kept its sponsorship, it might have compromised it's entire operation in Brazil during and after the olympic games and potentially in other places too.
#41 by Maria Esquerre on 5/23/17 - 4:50 PM

Reading this article had me thinking on why certain businesses do or do not keep an athlete following a scandal for behavioral issues. It had me questioning what are the criteria they used to stick to an athlete or to simply drop him and cancel an active contract. I do believe that athletes should try to have for the most part an impeccable record. These athletes are most of the time followed by millions of people and specially kids that admire them and see them as role models. These athletes have a huge responsibility on society and they should be accountable for their acts. However, some businesses decide to stick to an athlete regardless of a situation because the company knows that the situation will be soon forget and that people will start following them after some time. Sometimes, certain situations make them more popular which means more followers and business benefit from it.
#42 by Hussein Rakine on 5/23/17 - 4:57 PM

Influencers such as superstars can be beneficial but can have drawbacks as stated in the article. I believe it all comes down to if the consumers like the star or not. If consumers begin to dislike or even hate the endorsed star and that star "likes" your product than consumers will begin to dislike your product. If consumers like the superstar and the star "likes" your product than consumers will like your product as well.
#43 by Pamela Danberg on 5/23/17 - 10:13 PM

Dr. Petrescu brought some interesting insight to sponsorship loyalty toward athletes and what determines whether they stand by them through the good and bad behavior. The popularity of an athlete and their ranking certainly affect the decision-making process. The thing about Tiger Woods and Michael Phelps is they are the greatest athletes of their generation in their respective sports. They made more money for their sponsors than probably any other athlete or combination of athletes before or since. So you can understand them forgiving a few transgressions. Oscar Pistorius wasn’t close to being anywhere near the cash cow for Nike that Tiger was, and while Tiger had relationship issues, he was never convicted of killing anyone. Michael Phelps did for Speedo what Tiger did for Nike. That Speedo was not aware that Phelps would create his own brand and walk away shows that the relationship between the sponsor and the athlete was not as perfect as it seemed.
#44 by Amanda Gomes on 5/24/17 - 12:33 AM

This article was very interesting, I see these commercials and ads all the time but I never thought about the relationships behind them. When all the Tiger Woods drama was going on it never hit me that he would be having trouble with Nike, but the relationship he built over the years with them outweighed the drama he was facing with society. In the end Nike decided that it wasn’t worth losing him over. The way Nike handles who they keep and who they drop is very noble of them. They take the offense, weigh it with society and values, which leads them to their decisions and so far I believe they have done a good job. Which is why in return they are still one of the biggest name brands.
#45 by Almir Cortopassi on 5/24/17 - 10:05 AM

This was a very interesting blog post. When it comes to sponsors choosing athletes to represent, it is almost always a gamble, but I believe the return on investment outweighs the risk. For example, Nike’s endorsement of LeBron James is one of the largest endorsements ever, and it is a lifetime deal. They cannot predict what actions LeBron may act on, but they know he is worth the investment. At one point, Nike thought the same of Tiger Woods; however, circumstances changed and they had to drop him to clean up. I believe it is not worth keeping athletes who act negatively because there is always someone next up to take their place. A company does not need to soil their image trying to keep an athlete around who cannot keep their own image clean.
#46 by Janel Garcia on 5/24/17 - 10:46 AM

Reputation is everything when it comes to branding and when someone or something threatens that reputation, the brand must use strategic measures to ensure their image or relationship with the ambassador is not tarnished along the way. The article states that brands focus on the size of the infraction and the relationship built with the celebrity involved. I agree in using these two forms of measurement to decide on whether to drop someone from a campaign or your brand, but how do you decide what is more important? I believe the magnitude of the offense should always take priority over the relationship built between the star and the brand. A company has to protect themselves first before considering the consequences of others. Fads change quickly and relationships can be re-built, but your reputation is something that stays with you forever.
#47 by Michael Clavelli on 5/24/17 - 12:20 PM

This article brings up a great topic that many companies are not keen about discussing. We have to remember that athletes are humans just like the rest of us. Everyone is susceptible to the uncertainties of life as well as, making mistakes. Sponsorship companies should have particular guidelines in place for an uncertain event but keep in mind the severity of the accusation. On the other hand it is in the athletes best interest to hold themselves to a higher standard knowing their every move is being monitored/watched.
#48 by Adrian Clarke on 5/24/17 - 3:19 PM

Great article. Athletes such as Tiger Woods and Michael Phelps have earned the Superstar title and have established themselves a profitable relationship with their sponsors. In their cases, if their respective industries were able to forgive and accept them back (granted their talents warrant their acceptance) then the sponsors can take the risk of still backing them despite the initial backlash. As stated in the article, Nike aided in making the "apology" commercial to help repair Tiger's image even with the initial backlash. With newer up-and-coming stars, companies can take the risk of pulling their sponsorship because unlike superstars like Tiger, they are still new to the game and may be blackballed for their actions. The chances of a star coming back after certain accusations or crimes are slim and may not be worth the risk. Take Michael Vick as an example. With a lucrative, basically career, contract with the Falcons, a shoe deal with Nike, and plenty of other endorsements, Vick practically lost it all after the dog fighting scandal. He was lucky to come back and still be talented enough to land on an NFL team and still play. However, his career wasn't the same; he didn't have the big-time contracts or endorsements that he had before because sponsors didn't feel that he could bounce back after such a case. Now imagine if Nike still backed Vick after his dog fighting scandal. It would have been a big risk because Vick didn't come back the same athlete he was before and he wasn't that "superstar" he once was. He got the crowd excited but his jerseys weren’t selling out like they were when he was in Atlanta.
#49 by Vijay Knight on 5/24/17 - 8:43 PM

I love the basis of this article as it evaluates the good and bad developments that come out of the relationships athletes develop with sponsors and vice versa. We have seen athletes go through trials and tribulations which caused them to lose several sponsors for example Kobe Bryant due to the alleged sexual assualt case , but Kobe was able to bounce back from this and although he was dropped by some sponsors such as Mcdonalds, he was well supported by Nike and Spalding. Part of this is due to the brand's image and what they see as fit , Mcdonalds which is a wholesome family image would not want to be associated with Bryant at that time but a company like Nike is primarily based on athletic achievement so the impact wasn't as bad.
#50 by Daniela De Nicolo on 5/24/17 - 10:08 PM

I completely agree with this blog. As a matter of fact, as I was reading it, I was thinking of the reasons why these sponsors maintained the business relationships with some of these individuals, which were the same as the information stated in this blog.

I also think it is affected by what is socially accepted overall. For example, aside from the fact that Michael Phelps was pretty much at the peak of his career, and this played a huge role as to Speedo’s decision, we also have to take into consideration some of the social norms and the changes that are taking place in society. Marihuana does not have such a negative stigma on younger generations as it did before, and still does to older generations. Didn’t Miley Cyrus’ award acceptance include a statement indicating that she was smoking it? As a matter of fact, countries and states were and are working towards legalizing this drug. Therefore, Michael Phelp’s incident does not appear to be major compared to others. I understand kids look up to these stars for guidance and such, but it wasn’t something that a good PR approach couldn’t have contained the damage and easily forgotten. On the other hand, homicide, is not acceptable by anyone, therefore, it would make complete sense to drop Pistorius.

Anyhow, I agree with this blog that the amount of revenue that each star contributed in generating has a lot to do with their decision. Furthermore, there are certain errors that can be considered as minor and easily forgotten. There are some that simply cannot be ignored. If any star of the caliber of Phelps, Woods or Sharapova, committed such a crime, I would expect all of the sponsors to part ways as it also becomes an ethical issue.
#51 by Latavia Madison on 5/25/17 - 6:36 AM

I completely agree with Andres Parra’s post 100%. The point of Athletic sponsorships or “superstar” sponsorships is to promote the brand image of the company. It’s a two way marketing relationship. Most of the time companies only choose to go into relationship marriages if the athlete or superstar is a good fit for the company. Parra pretty much said everything in their post about the power of sponsor love; I could not have said it better. The best statement he said is if a company decides to let go of a client the very first time something goes wrong, it does say a lot about the organization. Although it is can be all about the money in business, not letting go of certain athletes does say a lot because that tells the audience what the company is willing to accept and what they are not. Sometimes it’s not fair.
#52 by Karen Tigse Viteri on 5/25/17 - 1:49 PM

Very interesting article. Athletes can become either a positive or negative image to a company. In my opinion a positive image conveys a message of confidence and security for consumers, which in return can increase sales for a company. However, when athletes get involve in these negative perceive situations as you stated in this article, it can cost a company millions so the decision is definitely not easy.
#53 by Hillary J. Taylor on 5/25/17 - 3:00 PM

This is an article that I found especially interesting since I have a great love for sports. I must admit that there are times when the general public does wonder what determines whether or not an athlete loses their sponsors. I agree with the article that it has a lot to do with the status of the athlete – rather they are considered a “star” or a “superstar”. Tiger Woods is still considered one of the best golf players of all times and although that doesn’t make him untouchable, an athlete of his caliber will be very profitable for a sponsor. I think it’s a wise decision for the sponsor to consider the nature of the offense and the way it’s perceived through public opinion. That would determine the difference between continuing to sponsor the client and cancelling the sponsorship. In the end, if a “superstar” commits an offense or takes part in a scandal that’s not totally taboo yet simply frowned upon, it is a smart decision for the sponsor to do whatever necessary to achieve public forgiveness rather than disconnect themselves from the athlete.
#54 by Mehedi Hasan on 5/25/17 - 5:25 PM

Now a day people are more fascinated with athletes and when they see those athletes wearing something or using something, people gets fascinated to get those services. I am a big fan of Messy and the day I saw him online using or promoting Sony Headphones, I felt the necessity to buy one Sony Headphone too. Still sponsors like Nike or Adidas sometimes face trouble for bad activities of athletes who represents them. This are temporary and I think companies should maintain relation with them because as a human being they make mistakes but their follower or fans don’t leave them right after any scandal. So professional life and personal life should be treated as different entities.
#55 by Derek Bisson on 5/25/17 - 5:54 PM

When an athlete or the like becomes sponsored by an organization, that organization is attaching themselves to the person's brand. If an event triggers the sponsored person's brand to change, the organization is very quick to distance themselves from that person in an attempt to 'save face'.
#56 by Sheandra Newton on 5/25/17 - 6:02 PM

The blog closed with a very interesting statement. “It is not easy to let a lifetime of happy and profitable relationship go away, even in business. Unless consumers signal that time has come.”
This isn’t necessarily true. Consumer are emotional and in the heat of the moment can overreact. In cases where the wrongdoing is a moral issue such as the Tiger Woods cheating scandal, I do not think ties need to be severed. Tiger Wood’s inability to stay faithful to his wife had nothing to do with the values of the brands he endorses. Nike did a good thing by sticking with him and helping him through it. In fact, I respect Nike more as a brand for it.
#57 by Marco Gutierrez on 5/26/17 - 10:39 AM

When dealing with personalities, and especially athletes, there is a difference between a star and super star. Just like managing any product, companies, agents, etc. need to make a cost/benefit analysis to decide how to proceed once their “product” runs into trouble. I believe much depends on the current social perceptions, how much are people willing to tolerate actions which at earlier times were unacceptable, the athlete’s recognition with a brand, and people’s love for fallen heroes redeeming themselves. When it comes to swimming, Phelps comes to mind, didn’t remember Lochte until I read the blog.
#58 by Jo A. Altamirano on 6/2/17 - 2:04 PM

Very interesting article.This article brings up an excellent topic that a lot of firms don't seem to be hooked in to discussing. we've to recollect that athletes area unit humans rather like the remainder people. everyone seems to be vulnerable to the uncertainties of life likewise as, creating mistakes. support firms ought to have specific pointers in situ for Associate in Nursing unsure event however confine mind the severity of the accusation. On the opposite hand it's within the athletes best interest to carry themselves to a better normal knowing their each move is being monitored/watched.
« Back
#59 by Kara Brien on 6/3/17 - 10:35 AM

This article pointed out the importance of decision making during turbulent times. An organization needs to evaluate whether a scandal such as Tiger Woods infidelity hurts their brand more than aids it both in the long and short term. In cases such as Oscar Pistorious it absolutely makes sense to terminate the contract as 1) he committed an unforgivable offense and 2) Pistorious would no longer be seen sporting Nike or any other brand as his career is over; it wouldn’t make business sense to keep Pistorious on as he would provide a negative ROI for the company. In contrast, Tiger Woods’s scandal went away and he continued to be photographed sporting Nike products resulting in a positive ROI for Nike.
#60 by Stela Santana on 6/5/17 - 12:23 PM

Good article. I agree that the decision to stay with an athlete despite his wrong doings depends on how profitable the athlete is and how severe his/her actions were. If it's a forgivable mistake and the sponsor drops the athlete, it would be an opportunity for the competition to sign him and help him clear his image. Cases like Pistorius, Nike did the right thing because they were going to be associated with a crime the athlete was being charged.
#61 by Charin Campbell on 6/15/17 - 6:11 PM

“The power of sponsor love” blog post illuminates the importance of sponsorships for some of the words biggest stars and how the relationship must remain positive to ensure its worth. The post discussed the difficulties companies face when supporting “problematic” clients, specifically sports athletes. They used examples like Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods, and Ryan Lochte to demonstrate the spectrum of offenses that affect sponsorship. The company can terminate their sponsorship when the client no longer represents the values laid for by the company but also when consumers draw the line as well. It is important to note that the article stresses that the company must believe in the partners’ star qualities, weigh out the cost of the offenses, and ultimately determine the value of the relationship based on longevity and sentimental connections.
#62 by Gabriel Rodriguez on 9/29/17 - 10:13 PM

I find this article very intriguing. Being a fan of Tiger Woods and seeing him go through that tough was rough for Nike. But im glad they were able to stick with him because he has generated millions of dollars for that company, and one mistake doesnt define a person.
#63 by Melanie Diaz on 10/17/17 - 3:33 PM

Good article overall. The article highlighted company's sponsoring decisions. The company terminates the athletes sponsorship depending how consumers view the offense. I understand the company's decisions to let go of an athlete when they've committed a wrongful offense. I believe it helps give the company a favorable image. It allows the company to disassociate with the athlete and their crimes as well as alter their social perceptions.This also shows how companies listen to their customers when they voice their concerns. If the company chooses to continue the endorsement after the athletes wrong doing, it can show the company's priorities and allegiance.

[Add Comment] [Subscribe to Comments]

The power of sponsor love

Comments

About the Marketing Blog

Recent Contributors

Posts by Category