Do shoe companies actually get a return on sponsorship?

If high school kids see their favorite runner wearing Nike shoes it may encourage them to wear Nike too. This is probably what the shoe companies are banking on. It's not like track athletes are getting paid like basketball, baseball, or football players.

Yes, they absolutely do. Track athletes are underpaid for the amount of sales they generate. Remember track & xc are 2 of the biggest youth sports in the US.

But do they actually generate sales? And how do they quantify it?

I remember only buying the cheapest running shoes when I was younger. I didn’t know who was racing professionally, and didnt know the difference between brands.

it's a brand play not a direct sales play

Hey lil bro. Hell no they don't. That's why they all get paid like ass.

Do [company] get return on [ads/sponsorship]?

the answer is, no one knows.

b2bmarketing.net

“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.” | B2B Marketing

Lina Vaz

The most famous marketing quote of all time - is it still relevant?

Open link

Yeah, it’s brand awareness for the most part. Very difficult to quantify other than the obvious outliers which are almost all Nike athletes (in other sports).

Jordan and Tiger both with their own spinoff brands certainly paid off.

I suppose some young girls choose New Balance due to Coburn, Sisson, St. Pierre, and SML. Probably young Jamaicans still buy Puma because of Bolt.

It’s a good point that you can look at regional and demographic trends to see how marketing is affective. Puma has had no presence in the US but are ramping up their visibility with Jenna Prandini and the new NC based distance group.

Related, I heard a Nike shoe developer observe that they’d go to HS meets and see everyone wearing Nike spikes but when you saw them warming up they’d wear all the other brands. Their marketing was limited to Race Day.

I went out a grabbed a pair of Saucony Endorphin Pro's after watching Noah Droddy finish second in the Marathon Project while yacking on the finish line.

I think they get it off sprinters. That is why Nike sponsors them in en masse. When you think of athletics, people think of sprinters (100 to 400m). That is what avg people think in addition to ballplayers. They don't follow track but they do see them once in awhile on TV. And the races are short enough they watch for a minute. But they don't think the same with distance runners. Maybe only with those who follow the sports. Actually, most hobbyjoggers don't care except for Kipchoge.

A few yerars back I was talking with a guy who had been a big, big, bigshot, at Nike in its earlier years and who is still very connected in the sport. I asked him a question like yours like yours. He said he didn't know. But evidently companies that make sports equipment must think it's worth doing or they wouldn't do it. Does Under Armour improve their business by getting athletes at Maryland, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, etc.? Same thing for Nike and all the schools, athletes, pro teams in their gear. Are kids who play Little League, Babe Ruth League, American Legion, high school etc. baseball more likely to buy Nike spikes because every MLB team's uniforms have that Swoosh below the right shoulder?

Companies spend a lot of money getting their products onto visible athletes. I can't imagine they'd do it if they weren't sure it was selling more of their stuff. This reminds me of Avia. Avia tried to get into the running shoe business in the 70s when the Running Boom hit as did a lot of other companies. Companies like Brooks, Saucony, and New Balance all became major players and all of them got high profile distance runners into their gear. Avia never really did. They're still around but they're essentially non existent in the running market. On the other hand Sketchers had always been seen as a company that made knock off running shoes. But when they signed Meb they were taken much more seriously.

Watching Josh Kerr has gotten me close to buying brooks shoes a lot times. I haven’t yet given in but it’s gotten me close.

can confirm. i don't care for pro runners. maybe a running influencer or two, but but they don't count. i can care less for who won what at what race.

However, social medias like Instagram or YouTube probably weren’t influencers like they are today. It’s easier than it has ever been in history to follow pro track and field. Lots of high school age kids will know Jakob, or Kerr, or Kipchoge, or Tinman Elite, etc etc. This certainly influences the sales of HS, College, and adult-age runners. And, it’s never been easier to quantify the effects of sponsorships. The following an athlete has online is probably one of the biggest indicators of a brand’s ROI on that athlete. Example: Parker Valby = fast and attractive = huge following online = big $$$

Many hobby joggers started racing in Skechers after Meb won Boston.

The business people will generally look at sales growth as a metric of return on investment from sponsorship deals. But the reality is that T&F athletes are relatively cheap compared to other pro athletes and celebrities. I would bet that the entire T&F sponsorship budget for a major shoe manufacturer would be equal to what they pay their top three or four NBA players' shoe deals.

Deals with sprinters can have a big ROI. Puma was pretty limited in the US market when they got Bolt to wear their gear.

Michael Jordan and Nike. Line of gear with Air Jordan branding. Sales of said gear, less costs including endorsements. This is on one end, but someone does well and everyone in that sport is convinced they need to wear what the pro did.

why else would someone buy a Nike shoe if not for the bandwagon effect? Nike has the worst running shoes.

Kipchoge sold an absolutely massive amount of vaporflys and alphaflys with his sub 2 attempt/achievement. Whatever Nike pays him, he's earned it.