Adidas to terminate IAAF sponsorship deal four years early

Jeff Wigand wrote:

The Dirty Duck wrote:

I wonder if IAAF told adidas that they are no longer accepting money to suppress drug positives in light of the recent scrutiny. Breach of contract.

I don't know why people here think that organizations like the IAAF have the ability to really cover stuff up. It always comes out.

Sure, dude, sure. All those cases that no one ever heard of, and will never hear of. Those never happened.

This sponsorship is a bad hangover from the past.Its a limited return spend that sells nothing outside of getting credentials for staff attendance at events.

There is no merchandising around the events to speak of, the Adidas brand gains nothing from brand recognition by posting banners trackside.

Its logo on IAAF website sells what?

Its an outdated charity type of sponsorship that is a good move to dump and take those dollars and send against something that may actually sell shoes.

The "charity model" of sponsorship became outdated a few months ago when when IAAF started taking heat for selling influence.

Wigwam Geoff wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I don't know why people here think that organizations like the IAAF have the ability to really cover stuff up. It always comes out.

Sure, dude, sure. All those cases that no one ever heard of, and will never hear of. Those never happened.

I'm not sure how much experience you have with organizations like this or governments. Terrible at keeping secrets.

The Boost product moved the proverbial running brand needle in the USA, but nowhere near enough to be a true player in the market. adidas can take a page from what Brooks did and continues to do and now Saucony by creating a buzz about the product with 'local' runners. The Brooks ID Program has far greater reach and influence than say the Beasts or Hanson's Program, however Brooks has done a nice job of integrating these 'elite' programs into their grass roots programs.

While it's admirable the fastest marathon runners are wearing adidas, the USA running population has no idea of who these runners are. Their influence to purchase is certainly driven more from what their running mates, the local running star or high school coaches are wearing.

The adidas product is good, perhaps a better message and direction by adidas america global

runnerboy1 wrote:

The Boost product moved the proverbial running brand needle in the USA, but nowhere near enough to be a true player in the market. adidas can take a page from what Brooks did and continues to do and now Saucony by creating a buzz about the product with 'local' runners. The Brooks ID Program has far greater reach and influence than say the Beasts or Hanson's Program, however Brooks has done a nice job of integrating these 'elite' programs into their grass roots programs.

While it's admirable the fastest marathon runners are wearing adidas, the USA running population has no idea of who these runners are. Their influence to purchase is certainly driven more from what their running mates, the local running star or high school coaches are wearing.

The adidas product is good, perhaps a better message and direction by adidas america global

We are a little off point here, but lets discuss.

The boost product probably did as you say move the needle but not in the way they maybe have hoped. The rise in the tick in sales is do to the fashion element of athletic shoes becoming an integral part of daily footwear trends. Ultra boost etc with knit uppers have become just that "fashion" and their over product mix points this out as well. Yes adidas running shoes are better than they have been years but unfortunately that has not correlated to real runner sales.

Local running hero programs are pleasant community support programs that do give brand recognition on the local level. Im not so sure it drives sales.It would be easy to determine if it does just by asking the local shops, have sales increased when the program started? Reality maybe it helps local runners with free shoes etc. to make running/racing expense a little easier vs a marketing promotional machines that drives sales.

Back to the topic at hand, IAAF sponsorship offers nothing truth be told. Will Nike pick it up, probably, they are a $29 billion dollar company, buying into a distressed IAAF franchise maybe now at a discount over what adidas paid, its peanuts for Nike.

Good to know some of the big guys aren't afraid to take a stance on doping.

stop buying nike.

buy from the little good companies.

let run can make a shoe.

how about one shoe only.

the shoe the is most popular in their surveys.

Personally, I have seen a lot more runners wearing Adidas recently than for the previous 10 years or so. I had given up on Adidas trainers for a lot of years myself because the shoes seemed overbuilt and overcomplicated and hard to find in stores, but I've been wearing the Boston Boost lately, which is a great shoe. They have some good products now if they can market them successfully.

Back on topic, I question how much sponsorship of the IAAF is actually worth. I don't think IAAF-associated advertising reaches very many eyeballs compared to Diamond League meet sponsors or the athletes' shoes and gear. But for the IAAF, given Nike's history with sponsoring Lance Armstrong long after credible doping allegations were made, resigning Justin Gatlin, etc. I don't think picking them up as a replacement for Adidas would be very good optics for the IAAF.

What a surprise!

http://www.theweek.co.uk/athletics-scandal/68950/nike-to-replace-adidas-as-iaaf-sponsor-who-has-the-moral-high-ground

Rest assured, Lord Coe knows nothing about this...