There’s one March Madness juggernaut that no one has been talking about on sports talk radio. It’s not Kansas, or Syracuse, or even Duke… it’s Nike. The Nike basketball Twitter account announced just hours after the selection show that 49 of the 65 tournament teams would be wearing the swoosh, with three more sporting the Jordan brand. That means more than 75% of the teams are under the Nike umbrella.

Even more striking is the fact that every single team in the West Region is a Nike team, which assures the swoosh of at least one Final Four team. Here’s the breakdown by region (courtesy of @nikebasketball):  Midwest – 10 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan; West: 16 Nike; East: 12 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan; South: 11 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan.

Nike’s contract with each university varies widely. With the millions of dollars in payments, equipment and apparel that they are paying to these schools, the national TV exposure that they’ll garner this weekend is their payback. On Thursday and Friday, Nike teams will participate in over 48 hours of basketball. Every time there is a close-up of a player diving on the floor after a loose-ball or lingers on a player getting ready to shoot a foul-shot, Nike executives will be cheering. The prolonged exposure is why those deals are signed in the first place. This weekend, Nike and Brand Jordan will reap the rewards of those strategic contracts.

Tournament Expansion
This morning I listened to a prominent NCAA basketball coach talking about the prospect of the tournament expanding to 96 teams. He was very frank in his opinion (keeping the tournament at it’s current 65 teams), but was also honest about the fact that his opinion may be tainted by the fact that every one of his teams has made the tournament. If he missed a couple in a row, his vote might change.

I feel strongly that the tournament should NOT expand to 96 teams. How many of us out there can name 31 teams that didn’t make the tournament this year? Ok, several of us could do that, but now let’s think about 31 teams that we would want to see playing this weekend… that’s not quite as easy. Also, doesn’t it take a little bit of the cache away from making the tournament and devalue the regular season if all those the number of teams expands by almost 50%?

Brackets
Now, gambling on the NCAA tournament is illegal. Luckily, just filling out a bracket is not. Most likely I will fill out two brackets. One with my heart (with Syracuse winning), and one with my head (Kansas). Thursday and Friday are those two infamous days of the year where employers lose billions of dollars on lost productivity. While it’s not technically part of my job, I’ll be keeping an eye on the games and social media simultaneously, to see what teams and brands are activating using those platforms. So, who do you have winning your bracket?

This Sunday, the Dallas Mavericks will host the 2010 NBA All-Star game at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas. Admittedly, I’m not a huge NBA fan. I hear a lot about the Phoenix Suns on sports talk radio because of where I live, and I follow the Denver Nuggets because they have my favorite player, Carmelo Anthony. So normally, the All-Star Game might slip by me relatively unnoticed, especially since I’m running a half-marathon that day, and it’s every woman’s favorite holiday - Valentine’s Day!

But today I received a press release from a large PR firm. It’s not clear who exactly commissioned the press release, but I’m guessing it is a group called ‘the Coalition to Advance the Protection of Sports logos.’ After reading the press release, it really made me wonder if sports fans care about this age-old question: Are they real, or are they fake? (Merchandise, that is).

The press release attempts to ’separate facts from fiction.’ Some of the fictions include statements like ‘counterfeiting isn’t that big of a problem’ and ‘people don’t sell counterfeits in North Texas.’ The facts given are that businesses lose $600-700 billion (yes, billion) annually due to counterfeiting and that innocent buyers get scammed by this inaccurate and often poorly made merchandise.

So my questions for all of you are:

• If you went to an event like the All-Star Game, are you concerned with whether the merchandise is official or not?
• Do you look for the hologram on the tag?
• Do you double-check the spelling of all the names and logos?
• Are you concerned with the exact colors of the logos?
• Or does the lure of 2 shirts for $15 override any of those issues?

At times I’ve been worried only about getting a good deal. Other times, the event or team involved has been important enough to me to make sure I have the official merchandise. What do you think?

I think most people have probably seen this already, but just in case, I’m going to share it here as well. Macy’s made a little mistake with an advertisement they ran in Monday’s Philadelphia Enquirer. Take a look (thanks to the AZCentral.com FanBoy Blog for the photo).

In case you weren’t following baseball, the Phillies are currently down three games to two in the World Series, and in fact, they were down 3-1 when this ad actually ran. While I like the idea of having confidence in your team, I think this is taking it a bit too far. The newspaper has since apologized for running the ad. In situations like this, I’m a big proponent of trying to turn a mistake into a gain, so maybe Macy’s can offer a special discount on other Phillies merchandise for anyone that brings in a copy of the unfortunate advertisement. They could gain some goodwill for the mistake and generate some new sales. Do you think this would work?

An interesting story has developed over the past two days. It seems that at yesterday’s Sports Sponsorship Symposium in New York, Mike Principe, the director for BEST (the agency that represents Michael Vick), announced that Vick had a deal in place with Nike. This was big news, since Nike was fairly vocal in their decision to drop Vick when the dogfighting charges were filed in 2006.

I wasn’t at the event when this announcement happened, but I have to believe the response was quite mixed. There would be a tremendous amount of risk for Nike to sign Michael Vick so early in his return to the NFL. At the same time, it seems like the response in Philadelphia for Vick has been mostly supportive and without backlash against the Eagles’ existing sponsors.

Fast-forward to today, and we have an official response from Nike (as reported by Darren Rovell of CNBC here): “Nike does not have a contractual relationship with Michael Vick. We have agreed to supply product to Michael Vick as we do a number of athletes who are not under contract with Nike.”

This probably makes a lot more sense from Nike. Every athlete needs equipment, and I see nothing wrong with Nike providing their products to a former client that is making a comeback. The relationship is very minimal, without Vick representing Nike in any formal or public manner (and yes, even if he’s wearing Nike products, that’s not indicative of representing Nike – he could have bought Nike product on his own to wear).

So why did Principe make such a public statement yesterday about this relationship? I wish I knew the exact wording, which would help determine if he over-exaggerated the agreement or if the audience jumped to their own conclusion. Either way, the story is now damaging to all parties involved: Nike for the “potential relationship,” Vick for the deal that wasn’t, and Principe for possibly misrepresenting his client.

Today’s post is courtesy of guest blogger Dave Fogelson:

Citing the economy and an absence of players with superstar potential, Sonny Vaccaro, who knows more than most about athletic footwear promotions, recently predicted a tough endorsement market for the NBA Draft Class of 2009. 

All true but let me suggest another reason for the dwindling endorsement market.  The so-called “Shoe Wars,” that commanded so much attention during the ’80s and ’90s, are over.  They have been for some time.  How can there be a war with Nike’s share of the U.S. athletic footwear market more than double the combined share of its three “closest” competitors?  Meanwhile, New Balance has jumped ahead of adidas and Reebok adding further justification for its “Endorsed by No One” positioning.   

I was as caught up in hyping the “Shoe Wars” as much as anyone in the industry.  But when things got a little too serious, I would think back to the time my Uncle Ed and I were sitting in the upper deck at Shea Stadium during the 1973 World Series.  My uncle had just opened a sporting goods store and was peering down at the Mets and A’s through his binoculars while furiously making notations.  He wasn’t a scout, so I asked what he was doing.  “Checking out what shoe brands they’re wearing,” he said.  “Who cares?” I replied. 

Ten years later when I began my career in the athletic footwear business, I started to care a lot and learned very quickly how top athletes enhanced brand authenticity and credibility.  While anything remotely approaching a mega shoe deal is today unlikely even for first-team All Americas, I believe it’s still important for sports products to be promoted by the best athletes.  P.T. Barnum (the Sonny Vaccaro of his time?) once said, “Without promotion, something terrible happens – nothing.” He wasn’t referring to athletic footwear promotions, but the observation is relevant.

The shoe business was more competitive 20-25 years ago, and the promo people went overboard on the number and scope of endorsement deals.  Nevertheless, having athletes and entire teams wear your brand gave us shoe dogs something else to promote beyond EVA midsoles, lightweight uppers and durable outsoles.  Case in point: so much was made about Shaquille O’Neal’s endorsement that Reebok, in the minds of many, was transformed almost overnight into a performance brand on par with Nike.  This was far from reality but as the Reebok PR person, I wasn’t going to argue the point.   

While the running category defined a brand’s technology credentials, the real battle for athletic footwear bonafides was waged in basketball.  The war quickly spilled over into the NFL, MLB, international soccer and college sports before reaching a crescendo in 1996 during the build-up to the Atlanta Olympics.  The media even portrayed the Tonya Harding-Nancy Kerrigan incident as a new front in the Reebok-Nike rivalry. 

As long as Reebok, adidas, Converse, PONY and others remained in Nike’s rearview mirror, getting some sort of shoe deal was part of the right of passage for most athletes turning pro.  It was a sellers’ market, but much of that exposure eventually became nothing more than wallpaper, and the consumers who did notice were cynical. 

Back in the “Shoe Wars” days, agents and their clients typically strode into Beaverton, OR Mountainside, NJ or Stoughton, MA with a checklist of expectations (demands) about signature shoes and guaranteed advertising exposure, all for a lot of money and a bare minimum of the player’s personal time.  With the shoe now on the other foot, that approach is more outdated than playing basketball in a pair of PF Flyers.

While more modest in scale, endorsement opportunities are available for athletes committed to building true partnerships with the companies whose products they endorse.  The partnership needs to revolve around the athlete endorser committing to activities that give the company’s retail partners, consumers, suppliers and employees multiple reasons to care about the brand of shoes they wear. 

Attending sales meetings and employee events, accompanying sales people on key account visits, speaking to the media about company initiatives, connecting with fans in-person and on digital platforms and partnering on community betterment programs give people reasons to care.  This requires the endorser to devote more time and effort but can be accomplished without interfering with their main job as a professional athlete.

From first-round selections to the last player picked in the draft, professional athletes are influential.  Their performances inspire people and provide us greatly needed respites from life’s realities.  Off the field and away from the court, they have so much potential to do good work in their communities and motivate others to follow their lead.  When properly conceived and managed, their endorsements are economic stimulus packages helping companies grow their business. 

The “Shoe Wars” are over.  Long live athletic footwear endorsements.

About the author: Dave Fogelson held PR positions with adidas USA and Reebok and was most recently Director of Worldwide Communications for Octagon.  He can be contacted at dfogelson@optimum.net.   Note – This article was recently printed in the Sports Business Journal and is shared here with the permission of the author.

Adidas has put together a very interesting and interactive campaign called “Me, Myself” to support the launch of their new women’s apparel website.  Visitors have the opportunity tobe the new “face of adidas” by entering a special contest, either through the website or in select stores.  Participants can upload their picture and share a personal, inspirational story that other visitors can view and vote on.  The site also allows for voting via an integration with Facebook and other social networking applications.  At the end of the contest, three winners will be chosen to be in a photo shoot with Candace Parker of the WNBA, and these photos will be the basis of many online and in-store marketing elements. 

This campaign looks like it has a lot of potential for several reasons:

• A close partnership with Candace Parker, who is one of the most recognizable and successful female professional athletes
• Combining online and in-store elements to reach consumers through multiple channels
• Creating multiple interactive elements (entering the contest, voting, and making winners part of the campaign itself), which will better engage their consumers and website visitors
• Connecting with successful social networking platforms to reach a wider audience
• Using personal stories to build a deep and lasting connection to their brand

The campaign officially launched on February 1, and you can see the contest for yourself at www.adidas.com/women.