Their revenue is over $2 billion dollar per a year. $30 mils are nothing for them.That is cheap. How can they make money at that price when they gave Roger 30 million? Nike would have sold them for 84 USD each.
Then why did they sign him? To get the RF brand? That is not going to happen. I have never heard of paying someone 30 million without trying to make a profit.Their revenue is over $2 billion dollar per a year. $30 mils are nothing for them.
Also it’s private company so owner can do whatever he wants to do with his money.
They did not sign Federer to sell tennis items in order to make money.
Bring people to their uniqlo stores and online stores in order to buy life style products.Then why did they sign him? To get the RF brand? That is not going to happen. I have never heard of paying someone 30 million without trying to make a profit.
Do you have the figures about the revenue that Federer's presence generates? You are talking so confidently about these things, so you must have some info.Then why did they sign him? To get the RF brand? That is not going to happen. I have never heard of paying someone 30 million without trying to make a profit.
Jordan played in a sport that is both much more played and popular, and also can be put in a context that allows companies with relatively cheap products to sell their stuff. Federer has a completely different starting point, so the parallels are not there. What is the social context of tennis? A sport for the middle class with a lot of disposable income. To people that are part of that group selling brands with relatively ubiquitous products with low inherent value is not a major point. To the ordinary folk (which is BB's major target group) selling brands with low inherent value is much more fitting.Uniqlo needed a stand out face for their company, and Roger is one rare combination of class, performance, work ethic and sportmanship.
So I believe that getting your company name related to this kind of unicorn public face is worth whatever you're paying as it simply doesn't exist from a RP perspective. Maybe David Beckham is in the same category. But most of the sport icons are cocky, rockstars usually lack the "family man" attribute etc...
That's also why I don't understand their lack of inspiration for his gear. Roger could be the next "Jordan Brand" if they wanted, a 360° lifestyle brand built around a Superstar status that goes further than the tennis world.
So it is about making moneyBring people to their uniqlo stores and online stores in order to buy life style products.
there are decent people who did not buy anything from Uniqlo then they started to buy T-shirts, casual pants etc.....
it’s a long term vision from Uniqlo whether it will pay off or not.
Honestly, Uniqlo owner just wants to show off his money in my opinion. Seems like the owner likes tennis.
It’s his money and he can do whatever he likes to do with his money.
They make 2 billion dollars per a year. Spending 30 mils per a year is nothing for them.
I understood perfectly well.Apparently you dont understand what was said.
There are people around here that are busy with doing just that on purpose at every opportunity. They think that badmouthing Uniqlo and Federer elevates their competition, lol.I’m starting to believe it’s impossible to have a thread about RF / Uniqlo gear without it devolving into the same rehashed whining about why did he switch from Nike ?? Why did uniqlo do that ?? Do they know what they are doing with their money ?? It’s so bad, but at the same time I can’t buy it in stores — why the unfairness ??
There are ads with him, there are video reports of him visiting Uniqlo stores or doing other promotional activities and there are articles about him and Uniqlo and his mega-contract. Also, there are all the spectators all over the world that see him wearing Uniqlo whenever he goes on court. Last time I checked that also counts as exposure.More interestingly. Have you seen any uniqlo ads featuring Roger? I have not. Are they using him in social media? (I don’t know because I don’t use it other than a few platforms where uniqlo ads won’t appear.
I am constantly surprised by such comments. Are you a Uniqlo investor? What do you care what their financial gain is?I understand the positive association but can’t see how the investment generates any ROI unless he’s used in ads to sell stuff (whether the tennis range or the ordinary range).
Meh. Uniqlo tennis apparel is every bit as good as anything from the top range of Nike. You like your RF shorts better. Good for you. By all means, buy whatever you feel you like best.On quality, the rf shorts I have are nice and better quality than the uniqlo ordinary range. I would expect his deal includes requirements that the marketed goods meet min quality specs.
No, it is not. Normal tennis fans are not concerned about what a particular company makes from its apparel division even if they have a passing interest in how the prices are formed due to having to pay about the things they use. Also, you are not getting any information about the ROI, you are expressing an opinion about their ROI, and one that is not supported by any figures at that.I work in media, it’s all about ROI.
You don't present anything that constitutes an informed opinion. Just a bunch of "this can't be" type of comments that don't mean anything without facts behind them, so, despite your declared readiness to "play the points", you are doing exactly the opposite. Guesswork is not "playing the points", but it wonderfully achieves the goal of making unproven implications.Eh? ROI = eyeballs = sales. No ads: ROI? In terms of your marketing budget is it all about ROI, however you choose to measure it (including positive association etc).
My point being, whether the intention is to push either the tennis range or the ordinary range I can’t see how they are getting a return on the investment at this stage (but I don’t have shares in uniqlo and they aren’t a client so I’m not fussed). Plus, I think the tennis range is nicer than the ordinary range: not a comparison seeking to denigrate one but merely an observation that Rog probably has quality requirements built into his deal.
Agreed ain’t not point in a conversation if you don’t wanna play the points
It doesn't work like that. You came in with the talk about ROI, so the onus to provide the data that supports your claims is on you. I actually said that it is completely pointless to make such speculations without having the information, and invited you to present it, if you are making such claims. I also said that barely anyone is interested in ROI as a normal tennis fan, which you rejected, so, again, if you chose to stay by that point, you should make a case for it (however unimportant such point might be to the people interested in Federer's gear). Anecdotal "proofs" like "I haven't seen ads, so it means that their ROI is bad" are pointless.Goodness me. How many times have you seen uniqlo ads featuring Roger? Me? Never. The assessment is pretty simple: unless he’s being used in ads it’s hard to see how they are getting a return on investment unless they are measuring it on something other than eyeballs on ads. Have you got the uniqlo balance sheet and marketing budget? I don’t so I’m necessarily speculating. Care to share if you do? Why the contrariness? Jeez Louise.
A marketer who has more in mind than just a very, very, very small section of their overall collection.We knew in July of 18 that UQ wouldn't have effective advertising or a distribution channel for his line (meager tho it is.) Nothing has changed in that thinking. Wanna buy a Fed jacket? Sorry. Didn't get those socks the first day? See you in January. What kind of marketer only makes stuff available around the Slams, and doesn't sell the rest of it to the public?
If you have read my very first post then you would have understood my last. You Fed fans always think someone is saying something negative against him. I only said that the price that Uniqlo was offering Roger's kits were much cheaper that Nike did and the other poster took it as negative and ranted about how much money the owner has and didnt sign Roger for profit reasons. That is when i replied "I have never heard paying someone 30 million with trying to make a profit. So understand the context. As far as the RF logo i know that Nike is not giving it to Uniqlo. https://hypebeast.com/2019/6/roger-federer-nike-rf-logo-ownership-conflictI understood perfectly well.
You said "without trying to make a profit", which suggests that you know how much profit they make and that none/or negligible part of it comes out of their Federer deal. To claim something like that you must have some pretty conclusive data, otherwise your statements are sitting up in the air with nothing to back them up. Same for the RF logo, which no one outside of the involved parties knows anything about (and by the looks of it you are more wrong than right).
That looks familiar hahahahahahaI saw a teenager wore this jacket at a USTA tournament last saturday and I asked him where he bought it. He said he doesn't know. His father got it for him. I've been trying to buy one but no luck so far . I would buy this Uniqlo jacket over Nike any days