Kara looking to leave Nike, according to WSJ

This thread is stupid. She ran 2:26:43 at Boston last year. That will win or place her top 5 at a lot of marathons.

99% of runners today don't have running heroes or know anything about the history of the sport. Frank? Joanie? Just meaningless names. Rupp's silver was invisible. Kara is obscure, too. Go to a local jogathon, with expensively attired runners, and strike up a convo about Kara leaving Nike or her move to Boulder. Good luck. I don't understand why shoe companies bother with sponsorship, except for a tiny few such as Meb and Mo.

runner who professee wrote:

99% of runners today don't have running heroes or know anything about the history of the sport. Frank? Joanie? Just meaningless names. Rupp's silver was invisible. Kara is obscure, too. Go to a local jogathon, with expensively attired runners, and strike up a convo about Kara leaving Nike or her move to Boulder. Good luck. I don't understand why shoe companies bother with sponsorship, except for a tiny few such as Meb and Mo.

You're making sense here. Wrong place to be doing it ;).

Every single running shoe company could pass on sponsoring even a single track and field athlete, or a single road runner, and still make a fine profit.

"Hobby joggers," generally have to buy shoes.

"As athletes age, their ego becomes one of their two biggest enemies"

Left Said Fred wrote:

Nutella1 wrote:

As athletes age, their ego becomes their biggest enemy.

I would have thought age was their biggest enemy.

So, here's a question:

Is her pricetag worth it to other shoe companies? She's been the face/voice of Nike running for a long time now. She has a signficant following, but I, like others here, would suggest that her fanbase is made up of people who are largely not following the track & field news (and therefore aren't going to know she switched sponsors). Add to that the fact that she's 35, starting over (yet again), and at least currently isn't on an upswing. It seems like it would be tough for her image to be rebranded at this point as, say, a New Balance runner. So it's hard for me to see why it would be worth it to a company like New Balance to fork over her apparently high salary.

Doesn't Brooks have ties with all of the Rock N Roll races? Perhaps that would be a better fit?

What do you guys think?

And also, what does the "Right of First Refusal" mean for Nike? Is she committed to them, regardless of what they're willing to pay her, unless they release her or is there some minimum amount they have to commit to in order to hold onto her?

What benefit would come for them from releasing her? If the idea is that she's extremely marketable and that's why another company would spend $$$ to sign her, then isn't it potentially a bad play for Nike to let her go?

runner who professee wrote:

99% of runners today don't have running heroes or know anything about the history of the sport. Frank? Joanie? Just meaningless names. Rupp's silver was invisible. Kara is obscure, too. Go to a local jogathon, with expensively attired runners, and strike up a convo about Kara leaving Nike or her move to Boulder. Good luck. I don't understand why shoe companies bother with sponsorship, except for a tiny few such as Meb and Mo.

It's not about the name. It's about the credibility. Nike, Asics and the other sports companies do not make money from spikes, Football boots, Tennis shoes, golf shoes or any specialist shoes. Basketball is an exception.

The make money off street shoes and hobby joggers. Hobby Joggers is the single biggest activity sport in the UK for example. The sales A Goucher sponsorship is responsible for are due to elite association and indirect association with a class runner, not her name. Now Hobby joggers want a good to damn good shoe and will pay good dollar for it. They may know Tiger Woods, Serena Williams etc, but nobody sure as hell will think they are good sells for running trainers surely Nikes biggest source of income that isn't Basketball shows.

So the average hobby jogger who watches bits of Marathons on TV or sees the cover of runners world, maybe once spotting on a news snippet with a bronze medal around their neck will most likely imitate that pretty good runner who runs in those brand of shoes. They might know their name, they might not but for a beginner with a few bucks to spend on their first good running shoes or the professional looking for what's good and what's hot by association. That's where the Kara Goucher's step in for their sports company. By being on the top of the sport in their country they add credibility and success in association to a brand of running shoes. Same with the shop assistant, what would they recommend? Probably the footware of that athlete the T&F fan in your store raves about. Once that trainer is hot property the other hobby runners buy it, more store assistants recommend it and it sells and sells.

If I'm honest I do wonder how much in sales of golf equipment and trainers Tiger Woods is responsible for?

EVERY PENNY TO SPONSOR AN INDIVIDUAL TRACK ATHLETES (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF POSSIBLY USAIN BOLT) IS ABSOLUTE CHARITY.

A BUNCH OF DRUNK AGENTS AND DRUNK SHOE REPS PRETENDING THEY'RE PART OF AN ACTUAL BUSINESS WHEN FOR THE MOST PART, IT IS A BUNCH OF EX RUNNERS WHO ARE ALL FRIENDS WITH EACH ANOTHER.

Shoe companies sponsor athletes left and right but only select few are worth the money. And I would argue those are the biggest stars - at the same time the most expensive ones.

Ex: Adidas Messi, Nike Ronaldo, Jordan Nike, ...

In T&F: Bolt (Puma), Gebreselassie (Adidas), Farah (Nike) - that's about it.

shes not done wrote:

This thread is stupid. She ran 2:26:43 at Boston last year. That will win or place her top 5 at a lot of marathons.

Kara ran 2:28:11 last year.

I'm thinking a lot of people here aren't on social media. Pictures of her on facebook and tumblr get 1000s of likes. Most of those I'd guess aren't from serious runners, and may not even know who she is at all, and are just people who are inspired by a fit runner chick (in Nike gear).

Bocabaton wrote:

And also, what does the "Right of First Refusal" mean for Nike? Is she committed to them, regardless of what they're willing to pay her, unless they release her or is there some minimum amount they have to commit to in order to hold onto her?

What benefit would come for them from releasing her? If the idea is that she's extremely marketable and that's why another company would spend $$$ to sign her, then isn't it potentially a bad play for Nike to let her go?

Here's what's going on - Kara is shopping for the best deal she can get - as she should. Once all the offers are on the table, Nike has the right of first refusal to match the highest offer. Its just good business.

Nutella1 wrote:

Shoe companies sponsor athletes left and right but only select few are worth the money. And I would argue those are the biggest stars - at the same time the most expensive ones.

Ex: Adidas Messi, Nike Ronaldo, Jordan Nike, ...

In T&F: Bolt (Puma), Gebreselassie (Adidas), Farah (Nike) - that's about it.

I bet Ennis is sponsored more by Adidas than Farah is by Nike.

This is of course a very anglo-centric list. Isinbayeva is bigger in Russia and much of Asia than any of those.

no singlet no service wrote:

KG twitter followers: just under 47000

LFleshman followers: ~22000

SF twitter followers: just over 47000

G_Rupp twitter followers: ~25000

Lolo Jones twitter followers: 370000

Mo Farah: 970000+

Paula Radclifee 113413

no singlet no service wrote:

KG twitter followers: just under 47000

LFleshman followers: ~22000

SF twitter followers: just over 47000

G_Rupp twitter followers: ~25000

Lolo Jones twitter followers: 370000

Mo Farah: 970000+

Paula Radclife: 113413

Jessica Ennis-Hill: 1,287,981

I do not think Kara Goucher is a popular as you think. She used to be popular but her career is on the down side. Young runners including Mary Cain are more popular now. Some people see Goucher as a high maintenance athlete who needs constant reminder how great she is. Kara might be a really nice person but the future is for the young.

I think her new sponsor has this kit http://amzn.to/1idukzc but something close if not that one.

Kara's gone fanny packin'!

I wonder if research supports this? I.E. How do most people select their running shoes? By what a friend is wearing and recommends? By seeing what's on more people's feet? By what the kid at the running shoe store hocks? (Although at many major sporting goods stores now it is help yourself style.)

I seem to remember reading once that women are notably un-loyal in their allegiance to a brand, and more willing to try on several shoes for the look, or the feel, and also have several brands.

And of course we've all see the person with an adidas shirt, nike shoes, and puma socks.