Will Nike drop Rupp because of his poor attittude?

Your logic is not funny or smart. Thanks for helping me prove my point!

No one's interested in the this crap

I've always felt that the shoe companies would do better for themselves by signing more runners who run road races.

They actually mix with the regular people. They may have more influence on who buys their shoes than someone like Rupp who rarely races and pulls this crap after a bad race.

runn wrote:

I've always felt that the shoe companies would do better for themselves by signing more runners who run road races.

They actually mix with the regular people. They may have more influence on who buys their shoes than someone like Rupp who rarely races and pulls this crap after a bad race.

They most all do this:

Brooks ID, Saucony Hurricane Program, etc. They just have it in the grassroots department. Defiantly a need for both sides of sponsorship in running.

#cleansport wrote:

truthsayer wrote:

Obviously I was speaking about when they were still under Nike. They've clearly had to rebrand themselves since being released. Also, you never made a case for Rupp. You just dismissed my opinion.

You wouldn't be asking such a silly question if you knew the reason why Meb and leo got dropped. Read the above and you can see why Rupp is very marketable.

There is nothing silly about asking a question about why a person is more marketable than another. I don't know why you're so hostile and offended. And I know why Leo and Meb were dismissed. Again, that was not the question. The question was why is Rupp MORE marketable. If i'm clear, your answer (according to the above post) is that Rupp has won a greater number of significant races and run great times. Continue on with your butt-hurt.

#cleansport wrote:

runn wrote:

I've always felt that the shoe companies would do better for themselves by signing more runners who run road races.

They actually mix with the regular people. They may have more influence on who buys their shoes than someone like Rupp who rarely races and pulls this crap after a bad race.

They most all do this:

Brooks ID, Saucony Hurricane Program, etc. They just have it in the grassroots department. Defiantly a need for both sides of sponsorship in running.

I know you're right. I'm thinking back to the early 80's. It seems there were more recognizable American and even European runners at road races.

Many traveled the "circuit". I would be in the food tent after talking to some of the top runners.

It seems that now, there are fewer doing this.

truthsayer wrote:

#cleansport wrote:

You wouldn't be asking such a silly question if you knew the reason why Meb and leo got dropped. Read the above and you can see why Rupp is very marketable.

There is nothing silly about asking a question about why a person is more marketable than another. I don't know why you're so hostile and offended. And I know why Leo and Meb were dismissed. Again, that was not the question. The question was why is Rupp MORE marketable. If i'm clear, your answer (according to the above post) is that Rupp has won a greater number of significant races and run great times. Continue on with your butt-hurt.

[b] Apart from the Al Sal influence, I'm surprised Nike hasn't released him. They gave Meb and Leo the boot, and they were both more marketable (and likeable) than Rupp.

Apart from the Al Sal influence, eh? Other than that, how was the Dallas trip Mrs. Kennedy?

truthsayer wrote:

#cleansport wrote:

You wouldn't be asking such a silly question if you knew the reason why Meb and leo got dropped. Read the above and you can see why Rupp is very marketable.

There is nothing silly about asking a question about why a person is more marketable than another. I don't know why you're so hostile and offended. And I know why Leo and Meb were dismissed. Again, that was not the question. The question was why is Rupp MORE marketable. If i'm clear, your answer (according to the above post) is that Rupp has won a greater number of significant races and run great times. Continue on with your butt-hurt.

The painful truth about who is more marketable than the other really means nothing in the purchase of running footwear outside of the few who follow the sport. Very few could tell what shoes any individual athletes runs or races in. Very few would look at Rupp as the face of Nike or Desi as the face of Brooks, most look at them as just the athlete. The only guy that sells shoes is in basketball,his name is Jordan.

All of this elite running athlete sponsorship is more charity than elites influencing sales.

Athletes get caught up in false sense of value they bring back to the brand. Take Kara for example, infuriated she lost her Nike deal, could not survive with a deal, had to be sponsored to prove her worth.

So she gets an apparel and shoe deal, runs a couple of races, nothing for the investment back to her new brands, no one today would tie her to any brand. Leo helped bring awareness to Hoka, but really for the oddity of an ultra runner brand signing a miler. The Hoka NYC group or The Flagstaff group you think are good brand investments?

I could go on and on.

It's not always clear what value there is to a shoe company for having elite athletes in their shoes but if it were just charity for elites it wouldn't be done. Having elites in a company's brand means race photos that show their shoes and gear which keeps the brand in people's consciousness. Kids on high school cross country and track teams do seem to get worked up to buy a particular shoe that they see a favorite runner in and they make up a fair share of the market. And look at how many threads turn up here about shoes and the elites in them. There's one going on now about the shoes Kawauchi uses and another about what Linden ran in on Monday.

Sketchers hit the mother lode of marketing among runners when they got Meb into their shoes. If they wanted to transform their image from a company that makes knock off running shoes to one that serious and semi-serious runners would consider buying they could not have done better. Bolt keeps Puma in the minds of people who follow track. Rupp is valuable to Nike. In general, Nike has always had a policy of having the best athlete in any particular sport in their gear. A head or two rolled at Nike when they failed to sign Bolt. Rupp has been the best distance runner in the US for some time so Nike would want him on that basis alone. On top of that, he is very marketable even if he's not personable. The two are not the same. The love him or hate him stuff, the questions about cleanliness or dirtiness, the discussions about what really goes on with his training and NOP all generate a lot of attention. And the connection to Salazar, who is a Nike lifer, as well as Rupp's own career, will keep him in the Nike fold now even if he never runs another step.

But this is all marketing directed at people who do follow the sport to some degree. I doubt that any runner is really marketable to folks who buy running shoes to go mall walking.