Nike, please stop dressing EVERY runner in a race in the same singlet

yourmom.com wrote:

I think the "yellow jersey" idea to distinguish points leaders, reigning champs, etc is awesome.

People get behind sports when they feel like they know the individuals involved... anything to make the competitors more unique and less like no-names with the same jersey is a step in the right direction for the sport... but this interferes with the image you see of team nike leading the pack on the final lap.

How would you sell this idea to the sponsors (nike)?

Hmm...

The singlets could all include VERY LARGE brand logos...this would be easier if bibs could be smaller (especially since bibs are basically pointless in meets like the DL).

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

(especially since bibs are basically pointless in meets like the DL).

Bibs aren't pointless. How else is the major sponsor supposed to get their logo the most visability?

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

Nobody is getting worked up. Well, it sounds like you are, but nobody else.

I guarantee if you ask some guy who was flipping channels and came across the Diamond League, he will have no clue who sponsored Asbel Kiprop. He WILL know, though, that a bunch of guys he couldn't tell apart were running in circles in the same outfit, and that he changed channels after 60 seconds of this.

I really think that things like a yellow jersey for DL points leader, gold for reigning OG/WC champ, national colors for everyone else would be more interesting for both hardcore fans and the general public Nike and the IAAF, etc, should be trying to pull in.

It just seems like they have no imagination ever, beyond showing up at the meet hotel with 30 matching singlets. It's pathetic.

I agree other idea's need to be introduced to make the races more watchable. But my argument comes back to the marketing aspect only. Your guy flipping channels--do you really believe he's passing over the race on TV because everyone has the same jersey? Do you think if 15 random african's and 1-2 american's that they know nothing about are running circles in different colored singlets that he's going to be more inclined to watch? My point is, if your viewer watches for just 1 minute and moves on, but he notices a field full of runners in Nike gear, the impression is made. That's what marketing is about--standing out from the crowd.

It's up to the IAAF & diamond league promoters to bring the fresh idea's for viewership, because they are those ones that would designate the "yellow jersey" or "best young rider" athletes...not the shoe sponsors.

two bills wrote:

My point is, if your viewer watches for just 1 minute and moves on, but he notices a field full of runners in Nike gear, the impression is made. That's what marketing is about--standing out from the crowd.

It's up to the IAAF & diamond league promoters to bring the fresh idea's for viewership, because they are those ones that would designate the "yellow jersey" or "best young rider" athletes...not the shoe sponsors.

Wrong, the only moment he would actually see what gear they use is when they show each runner before the start. During the race you can't see if its Nike or Asics.

Nike thinks that there are no marketable brands or individuals in distance running. If they did then they would make unique gear for that runner (Tiger Woods, MJ, etc). They feel that professional runners only help marketing if you can see that a lot (all) runners wear Nike. There are zero athletes they want to build a brand around.

Barakus Obama wrote:

two bills wrote:

My point is, if your viewer watches for just 1 minute and moves on, but he notices a field full of runners in Nike gear, the impression is made. That's what marketing is about--standing out from the crowd.

It's up to the IAAF & diamond league promoters to bring the fresh idea's for viewership, because they are those ones that would designate the "yellow jersey" or "best young rider" athletes...not the shoe sponsors.

Wrong, the only moment he would actually see what gear they use is when they show each runner before the start. During the race you can't see if its Nike or Asics.

Ngdk wrote:

Nike can't afford to make custom singlets. It's a shame that they lack creativity. But then again, they've been lacking creative direction in Run for a while now.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Nike cannot afford..." ! LoL! The rumors are true!

As a start, they can heat-press/screen the country flag of each runner on their top, and possibly their name too.Triathlon does a good job of this.It is ridiculous that one cannot buy the same tops seen worn by the elites. People will easily drop $100+ on a pro jersey. Last year, I tried to purchase the lime green Adidas top, but didn't find it.And as someone mentioned the WMM had TdF styled tops for identifying the top runners and their accomplishments. The NYT would explain the system in days before the NYCM. Looks as though it stopped.

Hey Johnny, have you seen Nike's gross margin? Yup, they can't afford SMU programs.

Those suggesting different uniforms for rankings/champions: I'm pretty sure that's what the gold/brown(singlets) last year were about. Farah wore it as did Eaton.

But I think more of that thing would be helpful (perhaps silver/brown, bronze/brown (that might need a base other than brown)..

Def props to n.Willis who is constantly wearing a glaringly different color than the competition (yes, different sponsor, but still).

I think the big point is that what's good for track would also be good for Nike.

What would be good for track is to increase viewership and the number of fans. It would help build a fan base to make the athletes more distinctive, have their own individual fans, and for people to be able to tell them apart when they are running. Nike ought to be all over this for its own benefit.

Individual runners could still be made individually distinctive while using common Nike design elements. The gold and silver singlets, the OTC singlets, and the NOP singlets are all a good start in that direction. It just needs to be built on.

Nike also ought to sell the same singlets - maybe not in the same colors, but using the same design and color blocks (V shaped yoke or whatever it is in a given year). This all just seems like good business sense for Nike.

I can say this right now - it will look much better on Nike if every athlete is wearing the same colour shoes than if they are dressed exactly the same. People will not turn off the TV because they can't tell the competitors apart, yet, they will notice that bright neon green or baby blue on 75% of the athletes shoes.

LI Runner wrote:

As a start, they can heat-press/screen the country flag of each runner on their top, and possibly their name too.

And as someone mentioned the WMM had TdF styled tops for identifying the top runners and their accomplishments. The NYT would explain the system in days before the NYCM. Looks as though it stopped.

When I first read your post I thought you were talking about having the on-screen identifier like NASCAR does. So, even if runners are all bunched up, there's an arrow pointing to each. Shoot, they can include the flag in that, too. I like your idea of a flag (even smallish) and name on the jerseys (although many meets have names on the bib, so that might be unnecessary). Remember when T&F tried to do numbers on the jerseys? It was when Noah Ngeny was at the top of his game (since I remember the yellow Puma jersey). Actually, just did a search and realized that Puma had the right idea.

As for logo size, I assume IAAF must have changed the rule on that. Up until the early 2000s, shoe logos used to be bigger across the chest. We all know how stupid the USATF's rule on that is. At the 2004 marathon trials Hanson's had to cover up one of their singlet logos because it was too big. They (and others) may have had to tape the logos on their beanies, too, that day.

RunWild wrote:

I can say this right now - it will look much better on Nike if every athlete is wearing the same colour shoes than if they are dressed exactly the same. People will not turn off the TV because they can't tell the competitors apart, yet, they will notice that bright neon green or baby blue on 75% of the athletes shoes.

I agree about Nike putting them all in the same color shoes, like at the Olympics with all of the Volt shoes. Give the athletes distinctive singlet so you can tell them apart, but with the same colored shoes, everyone can still tell they run for Nike - or at least people who care about that sort of thing.

The problem for track and field is that there are almost no sponsors apart from shoe companies, so they get to make the rules. What's best for their interest isn't necessarily what's best for the interest of the sport, or the fans.

If you look at cycling, all the trade teams have very distinct colors, and they also have special jerseys for leaders in various classifications, national champions, world champions, etc. If there's a breakaway group of 10 riders, you normally know right away who is who. However, while you can buy the jerseys, unless you looked it up, you wouldn't know who made them (brands like Craft, Castelli, Santini, Sugoi and Adidas).

The situation in running will only change when there is actual competition for sponsorship. Right now (with Samsung leaving the Diamond league), the trend is going the other way.

Government Cheese wrote:

Nike thinks that there are no marketable brands or individuals in distance running. If they did then they would make unique gear for that runner (Tiger Woods, MJ, etc). They feel that professional runners only help marketing if you can see that a lot (all) runners wear Nike. There are zero athletes they want to build a brand around.

Barakus Obama wrote:

Wrong, the only moment he would actually see what gear they use is when they show each runner before the start. During the race you can't see if its Nike or Asics.

Wrong. Nike knows there is one marketable runner in the world, and that Puma has him.

A Duck wrote:

Wrong. Nike knows there is one marketable runner in the world, and that Puma has him.

Did you just accuse Nike of being stupid? Cause if you imply that Nike have 'given' up on marketing their brand in the best way possible because Usain is getting all the attention you are seriously accusing them of terrible marketing, not like you Duck.

As an insider, why can't we buy gear from Nike that top athletes use? Or adidas or whatever, its completely ridiculous to not capitalize on their marketing.

"hey, heres a bunch of brand new jerseys. They are thin, light and comfortable and in every DL meet you can see our top athletes use them.

Whats that, you want to buy one? No no no, sorry mate, only for the elite".

Ehh...

This is the inherent issue with T&F/ running. The bare minimum amount of equipment needed. Shoes and clothing.Look at cycling, the bike is essential and can be broken into hundreds of components. Each has its own market; frames, wheels, seats, handlebars, gears, shoes, pedals, helmets and the list goes on and on. Each with advertising dollars and willing to sponsor a race or team. Just create a cycling magazine and the advertising dollars will come in. Running has to work 100x harder to get sponsors. We don't have the luxury of many running-specific equipment manufacturers wanting to sponsor teams or individuals.

Querfeldein wrote:

The problem for track and field is that there are almost no sponsors apart from shoe companies, so they get to make the rules. What's best for their interest isn't necessarily what's best for the interest of the sport, or the fans.

If you look at cycling, all the trade teams have very distinct colors, and they also have special jerseys for leaders in various classifications, national champions, world champions, etc. If there's a breakaway group of 10 riders, you normally know right away who is who. However, while you can buy the jerseys, unless you looked it up, you wouldn't know who made them (brands like Craft, Castelli, Santini, Sugoi and Adidas).

The situation in running will only change when there is actual competition for sponsorship. Right now (with Samsung leaving the Diamond league), the trend is going the other way.

The sponsor is paying some athletes more than others.

You think they would want those higher paid athletes to be more identifiable in these races.

It's an individual sport but they are not allowed to be individuals.

Might as well just race robots.

Imagine if the triple crown horses and jockeys all wore the same silks.

This is nothing new. Every year the shoe companies have new kits that they outfit their elite runners with. Why does this bother you?