She also isn’t much of an “influencer” which is what you need to be if you’re not going to show up or win medals.
I don't think adidas cares much about the whole "influencer" thing.
In a video, Nikki Hiltz talked about not wanting to re-sign with them because of the pressure to make teams/get bonuses or not make teams/get a contract reduction. It was a major factor in her decision to go with Lululemon. Hiltz has 140,000 Instagram followers and hordes of fans who show up at meets holding "Go Nikki" signs. She has become huge in the gay/lesbian/trans community. She has several Olympic and World Championship teams on her resume and even a World Indoor medal. She is one of the biggest "influencers" in T&F in the USA right now and has the championship credentials to boot.
And she still did not want to sign with them. Making teams is what adidas is all about.
I was just saying in general it helps to get a sponsor if you have a lot of followers on the socials.
So you're saying Nikki didn't want to sign with the company, not that adidas dropped them. That's a little different. I get they want a continuous income stream, but also you're kind of saying you don't want to be the best of the best and be continuously held to a high standard.
Re. Maggie Vessey - she just met a rich guy and that's how she got by without a sponsor at the end of her career.
Adidas is a business that makes decisions in the best interest of their company and investors. Ajee has been in and out of the limelight for a last few years. Not worth investing in.
She also isn’t much of an “influencer” which is what you need to be if you’re not going to show up or win medals.
Yeah I mean come on - do they have an obligation to sponsor her for the rest of her life?
With a contract like hers (well over six figures for a substantial period of her career), they run on basically a 4 year period finishing with Olympic Games. Her last contract would have run until the end of 2024 and if she was renewed the next one would have gone from 2025-2028.
But in all honesty, what's she doing in the next 4 years? She didn't make the team in 23 or 24, it's great she's run 1.58 this year but she's not making the team this year either - what really are adidas getting back from their investment with her through to 2028?
It's not a charity - and Ajee had well over a decade of support from adidas (which puts her in rare territory), and I hate to point this out but I have to - 1) she was involved in a doping controversy of sorts and usually brands don't want any smoke with that even if it turns out to be "tainted meat" and 2) she was never exactly the Cult of Personality out on the track. Very reserved, never really smiled, not overly marketable to be perfectly honest.
She's made a pretty nice career for herself with the help of adidas - they don't owe her anything. Good luck to her at the trials but this isn't a hard-done-by story/controversy at all.
29
1
I know the m800 WR was in adistar 3s, that's about it
To be brutally honest, no shoe company makes a dime off of sponsoring any athlete. Noone buys a shoe because an athlete wore it.
They don't even notice the brand. Just a small logo on the upper left of the singlet, and the shoe is never on camera well enough to see the brand, let alone what kind.
Collectively, they have kept the public aware that Nike and Adidas exist, something everyone already knows. A more niche audience knows about Puma, Asics, Mizuno etc, people who run and would already know. The sponsorships have no measurable effect.
This video was served up by the algorithm and the first thing I thought was, “has Wilson ever opened up like this?” Maybe if she had, adidas would have kept her on, maybe at a smaller contract. She is older but has always been a solid performer but she was always reserved and quiet.
Adidas is a business that makes decisions in the best interest of their company and investors. Ajee has been in and out of the limelight for a last few years. Not worth investing in.
She also isn’t much of an “influencer” which is what you need to be if you’re not going to show up or win medals.
If you are a shoe company there is also a business case for keeping legacy athletes on your payroll rather than going to a competitor or lesser brand. Take Evan Jager as an example. It's better for Nike to keep him as a Nike athlete or at least a Nike corporate employee than to cut him and have him compete a few seasons for Adidas or Skechers.
7
0
I know the m800 WR was in adistar 3s, that's about it
If you want to be a professional and have companies pay for your expenses, then you HAVE TO PRODUCE. AW does NOT produce. She's an also-ran. Never a world-beater, on top of the fact she doesn't market herself in a way to produce "buzz". Makes perfect sense to drop her (and others) as NON-PRODUCERS.
People questioned this when she was not wearing adidas a few weeks ago at the Ed Murphey Classic. She has officially been dropped. Talks a little bit about it @ 4:20. Hiltz was right ... with adidas you either make teams and do big things or there are contract cuts and drops.
I don't think adidas cares much about the whole "influencer" thing.
In a video, Nikki Hiltz talked about not wanting to re-sign with them because of the pressure to make teams/get bonuses or not make teams/get a contract reduction. It was a major factor in her decision to go with Lululemon. Hiltz has 140,000 Instagram followers and hordes of fans who show up at meets holding "Go Nikki" signs. She has become huge in the gay/lesbian/trans community. She has several Olympic and World Championship teams on her resume and even a World Indoor medal. She is one of the biggest "influencers" in T&F in the USA right now and has the championship credentials to boot.
And she still did not want to sign with them. Making teams is what adidas is all about.
Good post.
Smaller relatively niche and upmarket brands like Lululemon fixate more on certain 'types' of athletes -- think of someone who yuppies will recognize in targeted magazine ads and social media content.
Large general audience midmarket brands like Adidas and Nike want broadly recognized winners -- think of someone who the general public will recognize on a billboard or a sports store poster.
The model Lululemon customer is a yuppie who wouldn't be caught dead in Adidas shorts at the yoga studio run club smoothie bar, and who would deny watching 'sportsball' or caring who Noah Lyles is. Amidst their well-paying jobs they vaguely want to project creativity, and are thus influenced by people they think are interesting or 'change-makers' like Nikki.
The model Adidas customer is a guy on the bus who wants to be in whatever he thinks the 'best' are wearing. They are influenced by winning teams in professional leagues, and winning athletes in championships. Plastering the logo on as many likely medalists as possible is the play for Adidas and Nike.
Adidas is a business that makes decisions in the best interest of their company and investors. Ajee has been in and out of the limelight for a last few years. Not worth investing in.
She also isn’t much of an “influencer” which is what you need to be if you’re not going to show up or win medals.
Ajee Wilson doesn't even put in a tiny bit of effort to market herself. Why would a new sponsor want to work with her if Ajee herself isn't even trying?
She's probably "trying" quite hard to run fast 800s. Is that enough these days? Maybe not. But let's not look down on an athlete who chooses not to play the social media game. If she's focusing on substance over showmanship, knowing that it may be costing her financially, more power to her. Two entirely different things that are often at odds with each other.
To be brutally honest, no shoe company makes a dime off of sponsoring any athlete. Noone buys a shoe because an athlete wore it.
They don't even notice the brand. Just a small logo on the upper left of the singlet, and the shoe is never on camera well enough to see the brand, let alone what kind.
Collectively, they have kept the public aware that Nike and Adidas exist, something everyone already knows. A more niche audience knows about Puma, Asics, Mizuno etc, people who run and would already know. The sponsorships have no measurable effect.
Good post.
Of course sponsorships have some effect, or profit-driven companies would not be doing it.
But the idea that an athletes sponsored at $100K/yr is somehow believed to "bring in" $100K in shoe sales is just not how the world works.
Apparel companies have marketing budgets.
To have known people in your brand (or unknown people labelled as winners in an ad) is one part of marketing, along with aspects of advertising and promotion, placement in stores, etc etc etc that have nothing to do with sponsorships.
No, nobody is calculating an exact dollar amount in shoe sales flowing from a train of Nike athletes in a Diamond League race. (Because influence isn't usually that linear.) Yes, brands expect these visuals to make an impression, and have tools to confirm if it is working.
