Oiselle, GoldieBlox called - they want you to earn your 15 minutes in a more original way.
Oiselle, GoldieBlox called - they want you to earn your 15 minutes in a more original way.
A Duck wrote:
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.
Based on your 2nd and 3rd points, it already has.
rojo wrote:
[quote]Now you know 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.
Rojo, I'm having vague memories of this too. Wasn't it where an athlete went into a Dick's or Sports Authority and there was a big banner of them on the wall?
Are you suggesting that Oiselle wanted to bid to support the entire T&F infrastructure in the USA? Unfortunately, you can't parcel out little bitty pieces to every individual athlete to meet their personal whims.
I'm also curious, which company do you think would have given a better bid today or 10 years from today?
Maybe runners want to become independent contractors much like golfers. There is an entire business of non-professionals that actually enjoy golfing and are willing to build their homes around golf courses. Do you know many people who enjoy running and want to build their home around a track?
Oiselle would be happy to have revenues of a few million dollars from sports apparel (probably at a loss) and I have no idea why they tried to insert themselves as a moral compass when what we really needed was support of the resurgence in running from HS boys/girls and professionals. Perhaps this was a failed business plan?
This sport needs to have the promise of a sponsor for a long term commitment in order to set up plans for the future. This is a risk that Nike took in 1991 and it appears that they are willing to take this same risk in 2017. There is no guarantee that T&F will have any commercial value in 2030.
With risk comes rewards and sometimes big rewards. NBA franchises bought in 1981 for 13 million dollars are now worth over one billion dollars. If Nike is successful, I hope their investment is worth more than that.
Which company was willing to take the risk in 1991 and why wouldn't Nike be considered the single leader in the field?
Who do you think would have done a better job to try to resurrect this dying sport? Please name the companies and the offer that they were willing to make to build the future of T&F in this country.
This isn't the "highlander". I'm suggesting that no one company gets the "entire T&F infrastructure" in an "open" market. If one company gets the entire deal, the market becomes closed. If you want free market competition, then you must eliminate barriers to entry, not erect them.You talk like the only way to save a dying sport is for one company to come forward with a checkbook. Nike isn't a charity -- it's taking more than it's giving. How about supplementing that 1 company with 100 more companies?The rest of your rant doesn't make sense to me. I don't measure the success of a sport with money, especially if the money is going away from the sport to just one company. For example, how about getting rid of logo exclusivity on uniforms. Then the athletes could find more lucrative sponsors, and more athletes could afford to compete. This would be better for the sport. Then Nike would truly have to compete in an open market.
DaveW wrote:
Are you suggesting that Oiselle wanted to bid to support the entire T&F infrastructure in the USA? Unfortunately, you can't parcel out little bitty pieces to every individual athlete to meet their personal whims.
I'm also curious, which company do you think would have given a better bid today or 10 years from today?
Maybe runners want to become independent contractors much like golfers. There is an entire business of non-professionals that actually enjoy golfing and are willing to build their homes around golf courses. Do you know many people who enjoy running and want to build their home around a track?
Oiselle would be happy to have revenues of a few million dollars from sports apparel (probably at a loss) and I have no idea why they tried to insert themselves as a moral compass when what we really needed was support of the resurgence in running from HS boys/girls and professionals. Perhaps this was a failed business plan?
This sport needs to have the promise of a sponsor for a long term commitment in order to set up plans for the future. This is a risk that Nike took in 1991 and it appears that they are willing to take this same risk in 2017. There is no guarantee that T&F will have any commercial value in 2030.
With risk comes rewards and sometimes big rewards. NBA franchises bought in 1981 for 13 million dollars are now worth over one billion dollars. If Nike is successful, I hope their investment is worth more than that.
Which company was willing to take the risk in 1991 and why wouldn't Nike be considered the single leader in the field?
Who do you think would have done a better job to try to resurrect this dying sport? Please name the companies and the offer that they were willing to make to build the future of T&F in this country.
othergal wrote:
Right. Just watch how this unfolds...
Yawn. Nothing.
Ok rekrunner, name the 100 companies that were all going to "compete in an open market" to negotiate 1 or 100 separate deals with USATF. And USATF was then going to be a clearinghouse to manage all these deals for whose benefit? Nothing is stopping companies from stepping up and sponsoring athletes right now? Or to put real money into Track and Field. (Funny enough, outside of nike it appears that a grocery chain, Hy-Vee, is the newest and most significant contributor to T&F as evidenced by their BIG long term commitment to the Drake Relays). Who (in a running related company) is doing it in any significant way? Name the 100, no wait there aren't even close to even 5 companies that are making a significant contribution to support athletes directly or indirectly. Take away Nike and I'd venture 60-75% or more of all current financial support for athletes and the sport would be gone.I get it, you don't like Nike. But there are plenty of opportunities in our "free market" for others to step up and support athletes and the sport (again, see Hy-Vee). Don't blame Nike/USATF for the inaction of other companies. Or at a minimum come up with a real, viable alternative plan - 100s of companies just ain't doing it.
rekrunner wrote:
This isn't the "highlander". I'm suggesting that no one company gets the "entire T&F infrastructure" in an "open" market. If one company gets the entire deal, the market becomes closed. If you want free market competition, then you must eliminate barriers to entry, not erect them.
You talk like the only way to save a dying sport is for one company to come forward with a checkbook. Nike isn't a charity -- it's taking more than it's giving. How about supplementing that 1 company with 100 more companies?
The rest of your rant doesn't make sense to me. I don't measure the success of a sport with money, especially if the money is going away from the sport to just one company. For example, how about getting rid of logo exclusivity on uniforms. Then the athletes could find more lucrative sponsors, and more athletes could afford to compete. This would be better for the sport. Then Nike would truly have to compete in an open market.
DaveW wrote:Are you suggesting that Oiselle wanted to bid to support the entire T&F infrastructure in the USA? Unfortunately, you can't parcel out little bitty pieces to every individual athlete to meet their personal whims.
I'm also curious, which company do you think would have given a better bid today or 10 years from today?
Maybe runners want to become independent contractors much like golfers. There is an entire business of non-professionals that actually enjoy golfing and are willing to build their homes around golf courses. Do you know many people who enjoy running and want to build their home around a track?
Oiselle would be happy to have revenues of a few million dollars from sports apparel (probably at a loss) and I have no idea why they tried to insert themselves as a moral compass when what we really needed was support of the resurgence in running from HS boys/girls and professionals. Perhaps this was a failed business plan?
This sport needs to have the promise of a sponsor for a long term commitment in order to set up plans for the future. This is a risk that Nike took in 1991 and it appears that they are willing to take this same risk in 2017. There is no guarantee that T&F will have any commercial value in 2030.
With risk comes rewards and sometimes big rewards. NBA franchises bought in 1981 for 13 million dollars are now worth over one billion dollars. If Nike is successful, I hope their investment is worth more than that.
Which company was willing to take the risk in 1991 and why wouldn't Nike be considered the single leader in the field?
Who do you think would have done a better job to try to resurrect this dying sport? Please name the companies and the offer that they were willing to make to build the future of T&F in this country.
I didn't talk about 100 companies making deals with USATF. But I'm sure that other shoe companies would pay more than they do now for the same privilege of having an Adidas, Brooks, Asics, Skechers, Hoka-One-One, etc., logos for their respective athletes on Team USA uniforms. Other shoe companies aren't doing this in a significant way precisely because of the exclusive arrangement between Nike and the USATF. They don't have this same opportunity for global brand exposure.Every company with a logo might be willing to sponsor an athlete, if they could get there logo on a uniform too. This inability for other companies to have their companies advertised is stopping some companies from stepping up and sponsoring athletes.It's not about me liking Nike or not. DaveW talked about an "open market", and I only disagree that the market is open, where there are long term, exclusive arrangements. That market is now closed, and will re-open in 2040, if things don't change.
LosersRant.com wrote:
Ok rekrunner, name the 100 companies that were all going to "compete in an open market" to negotiate 1 or 100 separate deals with USATF. And USATF was then going to be a clearinghouse to manage all these deals for whose benefit?
Nothing is stopping companies from stepping up and sponsoring athletes right now? Or to put real money into Track and Field. (Funny enough, outside of nike it appears that a grocery chain, Hy-Vee, is the newest and most significant contributor to T&F as evidenced by their BIG long term commitment to the Drake Relays). Who (in a running related company) is doing it in any significant way? Name the 100, no wait there aren't even close to even 5 companies that are making a significant contribution to support athletes directly or indirectly. Take away Nike and I'd venture 60-75% or more of all current financial support for athletes and the sport would be gone.
I get it, you don't like Nike. But there are plenty of opportunities in our "free market" for others to step up and support athletes and the sport (again, see Hy-Vee). Don't blame Nike/USATF for the inaction of other companies. Or at a minimum come up with a real, viable alternative plan - 100s of companies just ain't doing it.
Didn't beach volleyball allow their athletes to wear matching outfits from the different sponsors? It looked a bit odd at first but considering all the different uniform variations the runners use, couldn't be much worse.
Hey LosersRant.com... after reading your post maybe Nike is the problem, not the solution.
Nike has such a monopoly on track that other brands no longer care - adidas has shifted all of its funding to soccer, as has PUMA.
If Nike were to leave the sport tomorrow, all the other brands will be back in the game.
Nike is a $26 billion dollar company with projections to $30 billion plus. USATF is a charity donation with little or not ROI , the sales of apparel items are menial and would never justify the expenditure .
Nike has to make the spend on sponsorship to shore up the stage for their athletes , plain and simple. Their achilles heel on the investment is the management/staff of USATF , nice to have puppets but a creative strong management team could lift USATF to a whole new level.
Oiselle is a meaningless fly in the big picture.
The sport is not dying BTW , participation levels at high school are at all times highs , sales of running shoes are at all time highs , road race participation are at all time highs. Yes this not 100% track and field , its an opportunity though to convert some of the interest level to T & F.
NBwpo wrote:
Hey LosersRant.com... after reading your post maybe Nike is the problem, not the solution.
Nike has such a monopoly on track that other brands no longer care - adidas has shifted all of its funding to soccer, as has PUMA.
If Nike were to leave the sport tomorrow, all the other brands will be back in the game.
Is USATF the only "game" available for companies looking to build their brand/marketshare? There are many athletes and events to sponsor, partner with and invest in. Again, see Hy Vee ( a friggin' grocery store chain) and their investment in Drake Relays and various other T&F and road running events.
I want to see T&F and running in general thrive and believe there are many ways for innovative companies to build their brands and running in the process. You make it sound like there's no potential for growth in the sport (because Nike's cornered the entire market?). As others have stated youth track and road racing (all levels) are going gangbusters. If Adidas and Puma and others have lost or can't compete in the marketplace, that's their issue. Just don't expect Nike to drop out of our sport, just like I don't expect Adidas to leave their exclusive with the NBA to allow "other brands back in the game."
othergal wrote:
If IP isn't your field, then I dont think your too qualified to say the below, no? Nike paid a certain amount to partner with USATF, they will go after Oiselle to protect that...
800 dude wrote:The legal issue here has nothing to do with Nike's sponsorship deal. You can't imply that someone else's gear was produced by a different company.
This isn't right. It has nothing to do with Nike's exclusive rights, and there's absolutely no chance in hell of the company going bankrupt. The damages from a doctored instagram photo would be miniscule. In fact, Oiselle probably broke the law on purpose to goad Nike into bullying them. Oiselle knows they don't have much liability exposure, and it makes Nike look bad. Smart move.
Again. No. There is no way that Oiselle could vanish. Their liability exposure is tiny. Nike would be entitled only to the profits that Oiselle earned from their infringement. On an instagram photo, that's probably nothing. Especially when they added EACH athlete's sponsor, which really undercuts any implication that the uniforms were made by the respective companies. If Oiselle really wanted to litigate, they would have a shot at escaping liability entirely. Not that I'd recommend that course.
This is an interesting issue, but actually, I think under the Supreme Court's very recent Lexmark decision, USATF would probably have standing to protect Nike's trademarks.
IP isn't my field, but I'm not aware of the Lanham Act applying when all someone does is blur out a logo. It doesn't imply that Nike wasn't the sponsor or producer of the uniforms; it just removes some evidence. If you can crop a picture so as to remove a swoosh, blurring it out isn't really that different. I'd be shocked if simply removing a swoosh could lead to liability. Though I don't think the argument is frivolous, which makes the threat of litigation very real.
You have quite an imagination othergal.
I'm unclear why anyone is upset/confused that USATF would send a cease and desist letter to Oiselle. How can you bash an organization for not being professional and well run and then criticize them when they take actions consistent with a professional, well run organization? Incompetence in one area is not a valid reason to criticize competence somewhere else. On this specific issue, Oiselle is the ones that come out looking like they are an unprofessional amateur hour act. Drawing a comparison between this action and other actions is fine, but criticizing USATF for this letter is beyond stupid in my opinion. It's called running a business, protecting sponsors, etc. etc. Any competent organization would have taken the same action.
I don't think anyone has posted this on here. Here is the Oiselle instagram photo in question:
http://www.runnersworld.com/sites/default/files/oiselleig500.jpg
Runnersworld had an article on the controversy:
from where I found the photos.
I started another thread on this but am posting it here too.
We should start worrying about Nike protecting their brand swoosh, when Nike moves its manufacturing back to the USA instead of sweatshops overseas
canspo wrote:
I'm unclear why anyone is upset/confused that USATF would send a cease and desist letter to Oiselle. How can you bash an organization for not being professional and well run and then criticize them when they take actions consistent with a professional, well run organization? Incompetence in one area is not a valid reason to criticize competence somewhere else. On this specific issue, Oiselle is the ones that come out looking like they are an unprofessional amateur hour act. Drawing a comparison between this action and other actions is fine, but criticizing USATF for this letter is beyond stupid in my opinion. It's called running a business, protecting sponsors, etc. etc. Any competent organization would have taken the same action.
/\
|
|
THIS
If this was not intentional fraud, I don't know what is. Why would you purposely take the effort to blank out and re-insert a logo? Does Oiselle represent or financially support the women in the photo?
Probably 90% of the Nike market couldn't even identify a few T&F runners. You are clueless to that fact.
I think Nike is now trying to create an environment where a few more runners might be known by the casual observer. You are also clueless to that fact.
Wow. Your facts begin with "Probably..." and "I think...". That's not a very strong personal commitment.You talked about other companies competing in an open market. Long term exclusive deals close the market. That was really my only point.Is more athlete recognition by the casual observer the goal?I see how an exclusive deal helps Nike and USATF, and some of that will benefit some select few Nike athletes. But what about the rest?Here's a fact:"Only 50% of American track and field athletes who are ranked in the top ten in the nation in their event earn more than $15,000 a year in income from the sport,"http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/news/economy/olympic-athletes-financial/index.htm
DaveW wrote:
Probably 90% of the Nike market couldn't even identify a few T&F runners. You are clueless to that fact.
I think Nike is now trying to create an environment where a few more runners might be known by the casual observer. You are also clueless to that fact.
