Originally Posted by dr325i
Nope, I am just not as good as you are to understand those! You are the marketing God.
Why is Raonic less marketable than Djokovic? Huge potential, Canadian with Euro background... And Nike is left now with Federer and disabled Nadal and....Tomic?
If you need me to explain this then the situation is worse than I thought.
Nike isn't merely "left" with those guys. Is there some magical number which they need to have in order to effectively market
their tennis range? No... In fact for many brands one person would be enough. Why do they need to replace anyone who leaves? Perhaps their forecasting shows the market will retrench in the next five years and they're culling the dead wood in their marketing department. Perhaps they did an audit of the value of their sponsored players and decided that some are in fact worth nothing at all - Del Potro for example might have been a money-pit for them with no positive return at all according to whatever method(s) they use to calculate it.
Perhaps they've simply had a change of mindset when it comes to considering they're nearer the end of the Federer era and it's time to start looking for the next big thing. With that, maybe Raonic doesn't fit their criteria for some obscure or obvious reason - such as he already has a clothing deal with someone else and so they wont bother putting much effort into him just for the sake of shoes (especially since he's a relative nobody as yet).[/quote]
Originally Posted by dr325i
Why was Murray "carefully distinguished" from Djokovic when he was clearly to be to TOP player from the UK (huge market)?
Look, we have no
idea what either Murray or Djokovic's deals with Adidas entailed. Maybe it's merely a case of picking the wrong horse - or that Adidas' UK HQ wanted to approach it differently... With the way the media landscape works globally being a local
market hero makes you a global
star only if you're from a few select countries: namely the US and UK and, to a lesser extent, Germany and sometimes a few other places. Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia etc are basically on par with places like Fiji, Sri Lanka and Gambia in terms of how much the world knows or generally cares about their sporting stars. They have to achieve more to break through to the global media space to any large extent or receive the same level of recognition - a lot more in some cases. Sponsors know this.*
There was no way Adidas could have known Djokovic's results would make Murray look like a pauper a couple of years down the track and so the strategy or effort they put into them at the time was not purely a talent/results based thing. There are other factors they would have considered (including likeability - which Djokovic probably rivalled Murray in having very little of 4 years ago compared to their peers).
*As Murray demonstrated this year - him winning the US Open would have earned Adidas more global PR than any of Djokovic's titles in 2011 did for Sergio Tacchini. Djokovic, for the above "minor country" reason, is at a comparative disadvantage in that respect - something which the biggest brands already know and factor in when calculating the likley ROI for sponsorships.