The Liberal Party has a Nike problem
What happens when a dominant brand walks off the field? Ben Develin, founder and creative director at Mude, looks at the dire impacts of a recent marketing decision by Nike to explain the current situation in the Australian political landscape. As he writes: “Every positioning failure begins the same way. A brand forgets who it is for.”
When Nike moved to a direct-to-consumer model, it left a huge retail hole that was quickly filled by its competitors
We now speak of Nike as a permanent feature of modern sport, like floodlights or televised finals. But the brand was once an emerging upstart in the late 70s and early 80s, compared to competitors like Adidas and Converse.
Both of those brands, at the time, imbued a more motivating, relatable, and easy likeability in their brand atmospheres, whereas Nike was grittier and unapologetically focused on winning. Nike’s brand projects an obsession for athletic excellence, dominance, and the cold discipline of the great athlete.
The brand was built by attaching itself to people who seemed to have access to a higher law of performance: Jordan first, later Tiger, then Federer, and by the 2010s Ronaldo, among many others. For the last forty to fifty years, that “win at all costs” positioning is the reason Nike has been one of the great brands of the world, and the definitive market leader in its category.
Very interesting! A great example of when a brand… or political party abandons its core identity, it doesn’t evolve leaving space for competitors to rise.