I honestly don't understand why a brand would sponsor most elite runners

Peach Pit wrote:

runn wrote:

You sound like someone who:

1. Has never been and never will be sponsored so you're angry that others are.

2. Doesn't understand how it all works

They do not receive more than they pay for any athlete- it's not like- we give Joe NFLer 20 million a year and he brought is 21 million.

Let them make their money doing something they love and, if it so pleases you, enjoy.

I have bought shoes because they signed a runner I knew personally and I emailed the companies to tell them that's why I was buying their shoes.

You realize you're in the VAST minority, right? I don't think OP is angry that athletes are sponsored, just that he noticed people on here are surprised when pretty fast guys are unsponsored. It shouldn't be a surprise that there are unsponsored Americans coming 15-20th at Boston, because no one is gonna be buying shoes based on what the 15th placer at Boston is wearing. A 3:39 guy isn't gonna get signed out of college unless they have something like a large social media following (The Athlete Special for example).

rojo wrote:

JonnyEx wrote:

I'll bite since I work in the industry.

You pay Athlete X a $15k USD base. There are time performance/incentive bonuses in addition to Athlete X getting $5k in gifted product.

With a typical athlete of this caliber and within that circle of influence, we can map out our ROI in the realm of Footwear, Apparel, and Accessories. This is only physical goods sold. Organic SM results in more awareness and ROI. On typical a $15K Athlete can generate nearly $25k-$50k in actual physical goods sold on a yearly basis.

It's worth it with the right athletes, that's why brands are selective.

Shoe exec we'd be happy to have an official shoe of letsrun.com. I guarantee we'll give you way more brand awareness than some pro you are giving 6 figures to who has no chance at US team. I'll also block off all ads on the site for every other brand.

robert@letsrun.com

The Beer Miler wrote:

HRE wrote:

I know you want to take a swipe at all the pro distance runners whose performances continually disappoint you, but corporations don't give charity to individual people. If they're paying a runner it's because they see it as helping their profitability.

What's the deal with all of the inferiority stuff in this thread? Running is not an unpopular sport. For multiple reasons professional running is not as popular for spectators, but it's still extremely popular participation wise.

I strongly suspect running products account for Nike's largest source of revenue. Millions of middle and high school students around the world participate in cross and track. Millions of people participate in local races, from fun runs to marathons. Millions of people purchase running gear for gym workouts.

After high school road races/fun runs are one of the few organized athletic events folks participate in.

People pickup copies of Runner's World or Google running articles to figure out how to hydrate during the local 5k. The article will have a picture of Scott Fauble or Rupp blasting through an aid station grabbing a cup of water with product logos displayed around the picture. They see pictures of Kipchoge on the front page of the sports section or on ESPN after breaking 2. They see that Nike swoosh on the clothing and shoes. A Gatorade logo on the cup. A XYZ brand banner in the background. They'll go to Dick's and subconsciously gravitate to xyz brand because they've seen the marketing.

quanterleo wrote:

I hear people freak out when they see a runner/thrower/jumper not sponsored yet. However, just because you made the Olympics doesn't mean a ton. Why would a company sponsor you when they probably have little return on their investment. Unless you have a million Instagram followers, it probably makes little sense. I love the sport and want to see runners get more money, but it's important to be realistic.

NFL players make so much because the sport brings in the money. There is a return on investment to pay an NFL player $20M/year or sign them to a sponsorship deal. An NFL player is insanely popular. We are not. A kid will go out and buy that product when they see him on TV.

People in our sport think we should wag our finger at these big companies when they haven't sponsored someone yet. Give me a break...they are not in the business of charity.

Run Industry Guy wrote:

If a company is sponsoring a runner just for brand awareness with the masses, especially a runner who isn't at the very top of the game or some social media darling, they aren't getting the return.

But there is so much more to bringing elite runners into your company than brand awareness for the masses.

First of all, there are 600 running stores in the country and a portion (even if it's just 20% of them) of the owners and footwear buyers at those stores do know and care about the sport. They hold a ton of sway for what shoes are sold in their community.

Those stores might feel they want to carry a 2-3 carbon plated racing shoes. They might not be able to get their hands on the top Nike shoes, so they have to choose from other brands, and they know/like some athletes that most of their customers have never heard of. Which leads to Saucony on the feet of the local runners in the store's training group because Jared Ward validated the shoes for the store owner, if not necessarily the end customer. Even better is if Saucony is able to send Jared to one of those training group runs to talk with the customers.

Second, marketing is only a small part of what shoe companies do. Actually making the shoes takes up so much time and resources. Having elites test those shoes is invaluable for the product developers as they make decisions that they hope will be on the feet of countless runners. This is why the Brooks Beasts are in Seattle and spend time at the Brooks HQ regularly.

Third, Brands have a never ending need for content. They need pictures and video for catalogs, their website, social media, store posters, trade show booths, billboards. The needs are endless and span the globe. Of course they can hire random models or recruit their friends to take some photos, but they can and do also use their sponsored athletes.

Fourth, these brands host high school races and camps. They have pub runs and sales meetings with key stores. They have charity functions. They have executive retreats and board meetings. If a sponsored athlete can appear at those and impress the people there, that can be valuable.

So if it's all about getting the logo on a chest and hoping people see that logo, its not worth a whole lot. But there's so much more potential.

In the end, sponsoring athletes is actually a pretty good deal for the brands that do it right.

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Run Industry Guy wrote:

If a company is sponsoring a runner just for brand awareness with the masses, especially a runner who isn't at the very top of the game or some social media darling, they aren't getting the return.

But there is so much more to bringing elite runners into your company than brand awareness for the masses.

First of all, there are 600 running stores in the country and a portion (even if it's just 20% of them) of the owners and footwear buyers at those stores do know and care about the sport. They hold a ton of sway for what shoes are sold in their community.

Those stores might feel they want to carry a 2-3 carbon plated racing shoes. They might not be able to get their hands on the top Nike shoes, so they have to choose from other brands, and they know/like some athletes that most of their customers have never heard of. Which leads to Saucony on the feet of the local runners in the store's training group because Jared Ward validated the shoes for the store owner, if not necessarily the end customer. Even better is if Saucony is able to send Jared to one of those training group runs to talk with the customers.

Second, marketing is only a small part of what shoe companies do. Actually making the shoes takes up so much time and resources. Having elites test those shoes is invaluable for the product developers as they make decisions that they hope will be on the feet of countless runners. This is why the Brooks Beasts are in Seattle and spend time at the Brooks HQ regularly.

Third, Brands have a never ending need for content. They need pictures and video for catalogs, their website, social media, store posters, trade show booths, billboards. The needs are endless and span the globe. Of course they can hire random models or recruit their friends to take some photos, but they can and do also use their sponsored athletes.

Fourth, these brands host high school races and camps. They have pub runs and sales meetings with key stores. They have charity functions. They have executive retreats and board meetings. If a sponsored athlete can appear at those and impress the people there, that can be valuable.

So if it's all about getting the logo on a chest and hoping people see that logo, its not worth a whole lot. But there's so much more potential.

In the end, sponsoring athletes is actually a pretty good deal for the brands that do it right.

Lol. You might think you know what you're talking about and if I wasn't someone that's been in it for over ten years I'd be fooled. The store I'm in is one of the most successful individual run spec stores in the entire US. We sell a ton of shoes and it has 0% to do with any athlete. Individual stores don't buy shoes bc of an athlete. We buy shoes bc the product is good, it sells and doesn't get returned bc the shoes fit well, we know how to fit, and who needs them. Does Jared Ward's name sell Endorphin Pros over the internet? I hope so bc he seems like a good guy. Does he make money for Saucony? Hardly.

Here's a tough pill for LR. You know who buys a huge amount of shoes? Walkers. And they care 0% about any runner. I don't even like the Ghost but if you have enough of those and Adrenaline and Cliftons you'll do better than 90% of the stores in the country. We don't need plated shoes to be successful bc the people who buy those are cheap AF and buy all their trainers online when they go on sale (good luck with those hard AF Ride 14s bc of the supply chain issues). If you think the sexy shoes and top athletes keep stores open you don't have a clue about running a brick and mortar business.

rojo wrote:

JonnyEx wrote:

I'll bite since I work in the industry.

You pay Athlete X a $15k USD base. There are time performance/incentive bonuses in addition to Athlete X getting $5k in gifted product.

With a typical athlete of this caliber and within that circle of influence, we can map out our ROI in the realm of Footwear, Apparel, and Accessories. This is only physical goods sold. Organic SM results in more awareness and ROI. On typical a $15K Athlete can generate nearly $25k-$50k in actual physical goods sold on a yearly basis.

It's worth it with the right athletes, that's why brands are selective.

Shoe exec we'd be happy to have an official shoe of letsrun.com. I guarantee we'll give you way more brand awareness than some pro you are giving 6 figures to who has no chance at US team. I'll also block off all ads on the site for every other brand.

robert@letsrun.com

The Beer Miler wrote:

HRE wrote:

I know you want to take a swipe at all the pro distance runners whose performances continually disappoint you, but corporations don't give charity to individual people. If they're paying a runner it's because they see it as helping their profitability.

What's the deal with all of the inferiority stuff in this thread? Running is not an unpopular sport. For multiple reasons professional running is not as popular for spectators, but it's still extremely popular participation wise.

I strongly suspect running products account for Nike's largest source of revenue. Millions of middle and high school students around the world participate in cross and track. Millions of people participate in local races, from fun runs to marathons. Millions of people purchase running gear for gym workouts.

After high school road races/fun runs are one of the few organized athletic events folks participate in.

People pickup copies of Runner's World or Google running articles to figure out how to hydrate during the local 5k. The article will have a picture of Scott Fauble or Rupp blasting through an aid station grabbing a cup of water with product logos displayed around the picture. They see pictures of Kipchoge on the front page of the sports section or on ESPN after breaking 2. They see that Nike swoosh on the clothing and shoes. A Gatorade logo on the cup. A XYZ brand banner in the background. They'll go to Dick's and subconsciously gravitate to xyz brand because they've seen the marketing.

SlowJogger27 wrote:

The Beer Miler wrote:

What's the deal with all of the inferiority stuff in this thread? Running is not an unpopular sport. For multiple reasons professional running is not as popular for spectators, but it's still extremely popular participation wise.

I strongly suspect running products account for Nike's largest source of revenue. Millions of middle and high school students around the world participate in cross and track. Millions of people participate in local races, from fun runs to marathons. Millions of people purchase running gear for gym workouts.

After high school road races/fun runs are one of the few organized athletic events folks participate in.

People pickup copies of Runner's World or Google running articles to figure out how to hydrate during the local 5k. The article will have a picture of Scott Fauble or Rupp blasting through an aid station grabbing a cup of water with product logos displayed around the picture. They see pictures of Kipchoge on the front page of the sports section or on ESPN after breaking 2. They see that Nike swoosh on the clothing and shoes. A Gatorade logo on the cup. A XYZ brand banner in the background. They'll go to Dick's and subconsciously gravitate to xyz brand because they've seen the marketing.

Counter argument to this......................I know several people who are 4-5 hour marathoners. They train, buy shoes, gear, etc just like a 2:30 guy. But the 4-5 hour guys have NO idea who is winning Boston, NY, the Olympics - they don't follow the sport. Your typical hobbyjogger that's running the local 5K does not follow "professional" running. I'd argue most don't even know that it's a thing.

Why would you sponsor a 2:10 guy when 99% of your target market has no idea who Kipchoge is? Or Rupp is? They have no idea - and don't care - what shoes the 2:10 guy, or even Kipchoge is wearing.