Oiselle Reprimanded by USATF

But they did not add a Brooks logo.

That is where the problem begins.

Legally, this probably isn't going any further. Oiselle complied immediately which is what the cease and desist letter asked them to do. These types of skirmishes happen all the time in the business world.

Oiselle (particularly through Lauren Fleshman) knows how to rile up the letsrun posting crowd, but keep in mind that most posters are opinionated guys in front of a computer. That is not their target market. So the rabble rousing antics that get the message board guys all riled up could be resonating well with their customer base. Successful marketing brands all have an element of polarization to them- what's important is that the positive side of the magnet is oriented towards their customer base.

Who really cares? Do you people not have a life?

turnabout day wrote:

Shouldn't Nike and USATF have to cut down the promotional photos to only show the uniforms and not the individual identities of the athletes to avoid misleading consumers?

Nike isn't allowed to use Kate Grace in a promotional photo. So you are right in that sense.

But what Nike gets is every newspaper in the country using sports action photos with the Nike swoosh as indicated below:

Seyta wrote:

For instance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9470078/London-2012-Olympics-crowd-rises-for-Mo-Farah-our-greatest-athlete-in-the-greatest-Games.html

Here's Mo Farah, winning Olympic Gold, in an ADIDAS uniform. Incidentally, he's Nike's TOP distance athlete, trains with the Nike Oregon Project, and makes use of Nike facilities day in and day out.

Many people in Britain likely think Farah is an adidas athlete as that's what they saw him in during London 2012.

Now you know wrote:

I know Brooks blacked out the Adidas logo on Desi Davila's Boston marathon bib in a photo for an ad. I'm sure every brand has done something similar -- including Nike.

Blacking out a logo and adding in a logo are two totally different things.

SPeaking of which, wasn't there an ad with a big name athlete, maybe even a nike athlete, a few years back in like a dicks' sporting goods - kara or wheating or something and a bib or something was photoshopped off?

Someone help me with my memory.

What Oiselle did was absolutely hilarious! Obviously

Nike employees are coming here to bash...why would anyone else get the least bit riled up over this? - other than get riled up against USATF because they are such a joke...and this was just an awesome display of reality by Oiselle.

rojo wrote:

SPeaking of which, wasn't there an ad with a big name athlete, maybe even a nike athlete, a few years back in like a dicks' sporting goods - kara or wheating or something and a bib or something was photoshopped off?

Someone help me with my memory.

Yes, Nike has played with swooshes often.

rojo wrote:

Blacking out a logo and adding in a logo are two totally different things.

I agree, but the way the C&D letter was written, it sounds like they consider blacking out a logo to be just as bad...

rojo wrote:

turnabout day wrote:

Shouldn't Nike and USATF have to cut down the promotional photos to only show the uniforms and not the individual identities of the athletes to avoid misleading consumers?

Nike isn't allowed to use Kate Grace in a promotional photo. So you are right in that sense.

But what Nike gets is every newspaper in the country using sports action photos with the Nike swoosh as indicated below:

Seyta wrote:

For instance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9470078/London-2012-Olympics-crowd-rises-for-Mo-Farah-our-greatest-athlete-in-the-greatest-Games.html

Here's Mo Farah, winning Olympic Gold, in an ADIDAS uniform. Incidentally, he's Nike's TOP distance athlete, trains with the Nike Oregon Project, and makes use of Nike facilities day in and day out.

Many people in Britain likely think Farah is an adidas athlete as that's what they saw him in during London 2012.

1. How long have you been following this sport?

2. Pretty much ZERO newspapers in the USA print photos of track athletes in action. Local road races/Marathons, yes IF big enough.

3. You still don't realize that this sport is so small that you get to exist because no one else cares to spend the money to do a professional version of the amateur hour you do here.

4. Nike could well live without track and field and all its logistical hassles.

5. Track and field in the USA would disappear without Nike.

fictionfunky wrote:

Who really cares? Do you people not have a life?

Anyone who actually cares about T&F should care. Professional T&F in the US is basically being kept alive by a SINGLE organization.

Are you aware that every year, a very large number of athletes use grants from the USATF to provide part of their financial support?

And are you aware of where that money comes from? (Hint, it's the sponsors, the most significant of whom is Nike).

Contrary to popular belief, signing several professional athletes to contracts really doesn't help the sport much at all. Dumping $20,000,000 into the organization that basically runs it all though, does. Especially when a chunk of that every year goes to help support a number of up-and-coming athletes make ends meet, along with established ones.

I didn't ask what USATF or Nike could do.Do you think there will be further repercussions?Seems unlikely given the conditions expressed in the USATF letter.

othergal wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The letter asked to pull down the photos, or else, and the photos were pulled down. Do you think there will be further repercussions?

Yes, the repercussions against Oiselle could go further, in the sense that USATF/Nike could decide to take action and sue to make sure that this will never happen again. Like I said earlier, (and like Avocado's Number is saying above) according to the contract between USATF and Nike, everything is lined up for them to take the proper legal action if they so choose.

You talked about competing on the open market. Long term exclusive deals are the opposite of competing on the open market.The market for advertising space on USATF uniforms has been closed since 1991, and will now be closed until 2040. Before that, uniforms were procured by Robe di Kappa, presumably in a deal without any logo requirements or restrictions.There was no new deal -- the existing deal, only set to expire on 2017, was renegotiated and extended for 23 years. Was there an open call for tender?

DaveW wrote:

I guess other sponsors didn't react since 1991? Do you mean Nike was the only one in the market back in those dark days?

Was there a new deal recently? I think this was about the fact that nobody else stepped up. Sorry that you didn't see it.

Their is no doubt that Nike's logo belongs on the USATF provided uniforms, by exclusive arrangement between these two parties.If Oiselle had put logos instead on the women's bare midriffs, leaving the USATF uniforms and Nike logos un-retouched, do they infringe on any of Nike's or USATF's rights? Does this harm Nike or the USATF?

rojo wrote:

Bingo. It amazes me that people think USATF and/or Nike don't both have the right to stop Oiselle from doing what they did.

Think about it simply. USATF's main source of revenue is their sponsorhip with Nike. Most of the money in track all in some way, shape or form results from the fact that track and field is a HUGE deal at the Olympics. Nike pays a sizeable sum of money each year to USATF mainly for the purpose of insuring that their logo shows up in every photo of every USA track and field athlete at the Olympics/Worlds.

Oiselle doesen't pay anything. They can't put their logos on the team USA uniforms.

The pics in question are not commercial magazine ads, just bad amateur snapshots from IAAF volunteers/officials. If it was a real Nike poster then USATF could have a case. But every court and every judge in the US can clearly see that isn't the case with such poor quality photography.

Hey Dividends payed,

the adidas three stripe on shorts and side panels of singlet are not violations of adidas logo placement. Due to this design feature being "famous", there is a provision in the rule book that allows any other company to repeatedly place their logo along the side panels or shoulders of any uniform to mimic the adidas three stripe. This happens quite a bit in the EPL, with brands trying to gain exposure (Diadora comes to mind, Reebok back when they sponsored clubs).

See on page 3-4 here for an explanation so you can have some understanding of the process,

http://www.usatf.org/usatf/files/fe/fec69d81-4471-4fce-afb1-5162c56d99d4.pdf

Thanks.

A Duck,

Track and Field in the USA would NOT disappear without Nike. Track and Field existed before Nike in the USA and will continue in the future without it.

Oiselle does come off as being a bit childish. However, they are still much more palatable and mature than Al Sal, who showed at US indoors that he is completely devoid of any decency, sanity, or composure by screaming at anyone who caught his eye about how everyone else is out to disrupt what he and his group are trying to accomplish. Utterly deplorable.

Joseph McVeigh wrote:

"Avocado's Number", sensible as usual. Wish you offered more thoughts here about T&F (though I understand completely why you don't).

Agree 100%.

GR wrote:

A Duck,

Track and Field in the USA would NOT disappear without Nike. Track and Field existed before Nike in the USA and will continue in the future without it.

+1