Innovation, alongside disruption are two of the most overused words in business at the moment. Like obscenity, many people have their own idea of what innovation is.
Judy Estrin wrote one of the best books about the subject and describes it in terms of hard and soft innovation.
Hard innovation is companies like Intel or Qualcomm at the cutting edge of computer science, materials science and physics
Soft innovation would be companies like Facebook or Yahoo!. Companies that might create new software but didn’t really add to the corpus of innovation
Silicon Valley has moved from hard to soft innovation as it moved away from actually making things. Santa Clara country no longer deserves its Silicon Valley appellation any more than it deserved the previous ‘garden of delights’ as the apricot orchards turned into factories, office campus buildings and suburbs. It’s probably no coincidence that that expertise has moved east to Taiwan due to globalisation.
It can also be more process orientated shaking up an industry. Years ago I worked at an agency at the time of writing is now called WE Worldwide. At the time the client base was predominantly in business technology, consumer technology and pharmaceutical clients.
The company was looking to build a dedicated presence in consumer marketing. One of the business executives brings along a new business opportunity. The company made fancy crisps (chips in the American parlance). They did so using a virtual model. Having private label manufacturers make to the snacks to their recipe and specification. This went down badly with one of the agency’s founders saying ‘I don’t see what’s innovative about that’. She’d worked exclusively in the IT space and thought any software widget was an innovation. She couldn’t appreciate how this start-ups approach challenged the likes of P&G or Kraft Foods.
I decided to pull together some of the better resources I could find on DeepSeek. It distracted and disrupted my writing calendar as I was researching a post what will be called Intelligence per Watt, once i have it published.
John Yun’s take on DeepSeek is well researched and thoughtful rather than a hot take trying to explain why the sky fell in on Nvidia’s share price.
ChinaTalk have put together a large amount of expert opinions on DeepSeek.
Study: 67% Of Gen Zs Want To Take Charge Of Their Health But Face Gaps In Communication| Provoke Media – Despite being known as the digitally native generation, Gen Z is skeptical of online health information and even telehealth appointments. In fact, eight in 10 Gen Zs say they’ve encountered false or misleading health information online and more than 60% say prioritizing in-person visits over virtual ones is important to feeling respected by healthcare providers.
Louis Vuitton APAC strategy: Inside the luxury brand’s Asian success | Jing Daily – “Given the economic downturn and competitive luxury market in China, Louis Vuitton has been seen adjusting its strategy to appeal to more diverse audiences, i.e. launching more affordable bag styles, participating in pricing games (points collecting, coupons refund), and launching cross-over marketing activities,” says Yu.
This year alone, the house has hosted its exclusive four-hands dinner at its Michelin-starred restaurant, The Hall, alongside Chengdu’s Latin American Michelin one-star restaurant, Mono; launched ultra-limited-edition diamond bracelets and a serpent-inspired timepiece for the Year of the Snake; rolled out its highly anticipated Murakami collaboration; and unveiled a new men’s store at Shanghai’s IFC Mall.
“[Louis Vuitton’s] strategy is rooted in consistency,” says Xuan Wang, activation director and partner at Tong Global and luxury PR veteran. “It has embraced a more localized approach — granting its Chinese team greater creative autonomy — while not losing the essence of the brand.”
I have worked at Interpublic twice during my career. Once at the very start of my career and more recently at McCann Health. I was never vested in Interpublic stock and I don’t own any Interpublic or Omnicom shares. This is not financial advice I am not telling you what you should do.
This post is not intended to be, and shall not constitute, an offer to buy or sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities, or a solicitation of any vote or approval, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction.
I am pointing out the bits in discussions that I found interesting, and some bits that I found deathly dull, but pertinent.
The shape of it
The acquisition would be done by issuing stock. It wouldn’t involve Omnicom’s cash reserves or raising debt to make the purchase. Following the deal, the new Omnicom would be owned by
60.6% of former existing Omnicom shareholders
39.4% of former Interpublic shareholders
Deal expected to close in the second half of 2025. Once it is closed Omnicom expected to get $750 million in cost savings over the following two years. Combined cashflow of more than $3 billion a year.
Investment analyst call
The investment analyst call was led by Omnicom’s John Wren and featured Phillippe Krakowsky. One of the main factors raised on the call by Wren was the reduction on debt to EBITDA of Omnicom from 2.5x to 2.1x. The combined organisation also had a more balanced maturity profile on debt.
The deal impacted scale in two ways:
Efficiencies due to scale.
Increased capacity to borrow and fund future purchases.
What was less clear from the call was the value to customers. Healthcare was cited as an area of opportunity as both businesses had a substantial healthcare marketing offering. But nothing on how to capitalise on the opportunity.
What I didn’t hear was how the combined business was going to get to 750 million of savings, but that they were confident that they could hit that number in two years after the deal closed.
I also didn’t hear a clear position on how the combined firm would deal with the drain of advertising revenue from marketing conglomerates and media companies to platforms. There was some lip service given to being able to better address generative AI related change as a larger group.
Finally there was no analysis, or consideration about how Omnicom and Interpublic would surpass their competitors innovation. Instead the focus was purely on existing combined size.
Shareholder value
At the time of the announcement, the deal was said to offer a premium in terms of value to Interpublic shareholders.
As for Omnicom shareholders, they claimed: The transaction will be accretive to adjusted earnings per share for both Omnicom and Interpublic shareholders.
Slow gains – which might make taking that money out of their existing shares and instead putting it in a S&P 500 tracker ETF seem more attractive.
Industry animal spirits (aka what people were saying in my feeds and op-eds)
The reaction on social platforms was shrill and overwhelmingly negative. The reasons given included:
The inevitable job cuts.
The internal preoccupation that comes from two large organisations coming together.
The lack of clarity about unique benefit that the new company would provide.
The two-year inward focus on consolidation would allow more innovative competitors (depending who you listened to this would be Accenture, Brandtech, Dentsu, Publicis, Stagwell) gain further ground.
Later on, the discussion moved on towards the reactionary nature of the discussion itself.
From within Interpublic itself, I heard concern about the future from people in different parts of the business. This was down to a lack of internal communication rather than anything specific in nature.
Left unchecked, it could be morale sapping and might encourage some of the best talent to leave for more stable environs.
Update: January 17, 2025 – Campaign magazine podcast. The most interesting argument made in the podcast was that the media buying and creative arms of Interpublic are seen as having little-to-no-value and that deal from Omnicom’s perspective was all about Interpublic’s data platform.
Any self-respecting investment banker worth their salt would be able to break the conglomerate down into constituent parts and sell it off (as what has happened with Interpublic agencies R/GA and Huge already).
In the PR and social / influence sector Golin and Weber Collective would make natural groupings to be spun off and still with enough scale to compete on the global stage.
From a creative agency perspective, it would be a similar situation with Mullen Lowe and McCann World Group.
IPG Health looks like it had already been pre-packaged for private equity when it was carved away from its advertising groups and nominally has a full suite of offerings to provide the pharmaceutical sector clients.
For bits of networks that you can’t sell. For instance if the purchaser doesn’t want to have an agency office in Malaysia (Malaysia is only in here hypothetically, in reality I have no idea why more global corporate headquarters aren’t located in the Cameron highlands); you can recoup some of your money by facilitating a management buyout. These are more common than you realise.
Instead the podcast participants think that clients are just all about first and third party data platforms. I would argue that’s a simplistic view that ignores:
The relative complementary nature of the Interpublic and Omnicom networks in terms of product spread and geographical reach. In most markets, one or the other network has an appreciably stronger position. Where there is consolidation needed, this would most likely result in redundancies in the Asia Pacific and European regions.
Client brands need for continued brand building and the current chaos in the major platforms pivoting to the new presidential administration’s direction.
‘Bad neighbourhoods’ for brand content will adversely affect the ability of brands to advertise or promote themselves effectively. It’s harder to build effective brand memory structures in what consumers are likely to perceive as a hateful, or hostile environment.
Finally there is the the little acknowledged fact that social platform advertising is disproportionally supported by D2C marketing and varying forms of hucksterism from Temu to get-rich schemes. This isn’t the kind of businesses that fill up the client ranks of large marketing conglomerates like Omnicom and Interpublic.
What business thinking says
Harvard Business Review claims that 70 to 90 percent of mergers and acquisitions fail. By comparison, anywhere between 25 and 80 percent of large IT projects fail. 70 to 85 percent of new consumer product launches fail. TL;DR running a business is tough.
Secondly, Omnicom and Interpublic grew historically through acquisitions. Which would mean that they understand how to move a business forward and integrate their new acquisition.
The business model that marketing services conglomerates historically worked on was a mix of an arbitrage play, driving integration and efficiencies.
Arbitrage
Omnicom and Interpublic both relied on a few ways to gain an arbitrage benefit:
Private companies are generally cheaper to buy than publicly listed firms. It’s a matter of economics, publicly listed firms list in a closer to perfect market. Secondly, buyout contracts to get the management to meet financial targets that facilitate either a faster financial payback or a cheaper price on the business.
Larger companies like Omnicom can borrow money at more favourable terms than a small to medium-sized business. Larger companies that have lower levels of leverage will be able to get money in a more favourable format than more highly leveraged business of the same size.
Driving integration
Historically these groups take a light touch on integration for agencies where the capabilities are common to more than one agency, WHERE the acquired agency is hitting the ambitious financial targets set by the holding company. Integration in terms of integrated new business pitches and common selling of new products or capabilities.
This might be where the client is looking for an integrated solution. Or it might be where it makes sense to pool resources to deal with a new area like Amazon advertising and retail media or generative AI services.
Once a newly acquired business has become ‘part of the furniture’ and the founders have stepped away, you are more likely to see it become more deeply knitted into the holding group business fabric. This is likely to include common systems and processes: time-tracking software, HR and talent management software, accounting software, cloud services and productivity software.
Efficiencies
Sources of efficiencies overlap integration through standardisation and being able to buy in bulk. A second source of efficiency is consolidation of common business functions:
Accounting / finance
Business development
Freelance staff pool
Human resources and recruitment
IT
Knowledge management
Legal services
Open questions
Both Omnicom and Interpublic have experience of integrating and spinning off parts of their businesses. What’s different about the Interpublic acquisition is that the scale involved is different from anything else that’s been undertaken in the sector.
How will this be done successfully?
What (additional) value is in the resulting business for clients?
ADWEEK polled marketers to better understand their attitude to the merger. On balance they weren’t supportive of the deal. Twice as many respondents were negative about the deal compared to those who felt positively about it. The good news was that almost 60 percent either hadn’t made their mind up or were on balance neutral. At this point I need to caveat the results with the note that there wasn’t a breakdown on the types of respondents in terms of their role and seniority.
But it implied that Omnicom had a serious communication job to be done convincing wider stakeholders on the merits of the deal.
The problem might be greater than telling a better story. By some estimates 60% of Interpublic and Omnicom scopes of work are allegedly already understaffed – if true, likely putting customer satisfaction at risk. And that’s before the reduction in headcount to match the need for cost savings.
Klad is a new trends in illegal drug distribution. Klad sprang out of the online anonymity of the darknet. Breaking Klad: Russia’s Dead Drop Drug Revolution | Global Initiative goes into detail about how the Klad system works. Klad seems to be the narcotics equivalent of an Amazon locker. The customer pays the money via a dark web service and is directed to a concealed geocache with their product in it. These caches are refreshed by low level network members whose soul role is to service the klad network.
Understanding Russia’s darknet markets and the logistics systems underpinning it offers insight into the future of drug trafficking (and other crimes) worldwide.
Klad is likely to be further complicated by the tight linkage between the Russian state and international organised crime groups.
The Game Theory of Democracy – The New York Times – Adam Przeworski developed a theory that democracy is best understood as a game, one in which the players pursue power and resolve conflicts through elections rather than brute force. Democracies thrive when politicians believe they are better off playing by the rules of that game — even when they lose elections as it maximises their self-interest over time. It works when the stakes of power remain relatively low, so that people don’t fear electoral defeat so much that they seek other methods reversing it. Winners of elections need to act with restraint. They can’t make life miserable for the losers, or foreclose the possibility that future elections would allow the losers to win. But recent years suggest that even “working” democracies can be far more fragile than was once believed; Przeworski doesn’t see an obvious way to protect it from being weakened further.
Using F-word at work is no sacking offence in the north, rules judge | The Times – As rude as the comment was, the so-called f-word had become commonplace “in the public sphere” — and that was particularly the case in the north of England. “Mong” is a derogatory term for someone with a learning disability, especially related to Down’s syndrome, and is also used as a synonym for “idiot”. Shergill was hearing a claim from Robert Ogden, who was said to have made the jibe during an office discussion about doughnuts and losing weight. His colleague was said to have felt “violated and shocked” by the remark and was left in tears before reporting Ogden to bosses, who eventually sacked him. Ogden is now in line for compensation after the judge ruled that his “lawless and toxic” office was rife with similar comments.
Inside Goldman Sachs’ years-long power struggle over its China venture FT – Goldman Sachs had their face ripped off and they are still enthusiastic about the Chinese market. Senior executives gave themselves bonuses while the business shelled out a billion dollars for very little. In addition, looking at market timing it’s unlikely Goldman Sachs will realistically get the kind of returns their shareholders would want ever.
FMCG
Starbucks needs to cut the crap from its brand positioning | MarketingWeek – Starbucks is more than coffee. It does have brand appeal. But it’s more basic than its highfalutin mission would have you believe. It’s a combination of being in the right places to answer the right category needs at the right time, with a small but not unimportant wedge of American quality and efficient delivery.
There is plenty of brand equity in Starbucks, it’s just apparent that Starbucks never actually worked out what it was. Professor Dolly Parton has the best definition for positioning: find out who you are and do it on purpose. To use her analogy, Starbucks never got to first base never mind second.
Yes, Starbucks grew under Schultz’s second tenure. He was an exceptional leader twice over. However, there was a vacuity within the brand that was palpable when you entered its stores. The commoditisation of Starbucks that Schultz spotted so brilliantly continued, offset by other excellent decisions that kept it growing.
The brand’s nonsensical mission statement did not harm it. It did not lose the company money. But its fundamental stupidness and overreach meant that the potential benefits of a more prosaic, practical, accurate position were missed. A problem deferred. Contrast with Why am I optimistic about Starbucks China ☕ | Following the Yuan
Interesting video by The Verge that covers how supply chains are crippling cassette players and compact disc players. Bottle necks include magnetic heads, cassette mechanisms (one factory in China makes a bad dupe of an old Japanese company design), laser pick-ups and compact disc mechanisms have a similar problem. The programme also misses out that the likes of Dolby Labs no longer licence their noise reduction technology.
Hong Kong moves to restrict business use of medical terms such as ‘treatment’, ‘clinical’ | South China Morning Post – Under the planned ban, which has already been added to the Private Healthcare Facilities Ordinance but not yet enforced, premises other than licensed healthcare facilities or exempted clinics would not be allowed to use terms such as “clinical”, “healthcare”, “medical”, “treatment” and “therapeutic”. Currently, it is not uncommon to see such descriptions used in non-medical settings. An online check by the Post found a gym claiming it could offer “targeted pain treatment” with a procedure called myofascial release. Another centre also claimed to treat various pain conditions “commonly seen in the city” by stretch therapy.
Great video hosted by Kantar featuring Mark Ritson on the benefits of consistency in brand building. I can’t embed here, you have to go to YouTube to watch it.
This post about layers of the future was inspired by an article that I read in the EE News. The article headline talked in absolutes: The external power adapter Is dead. The reality is usually much more complex. The future doesn’t arrive complete; instead we have layers of the future.
Science fiction as an indicator.
The 1936 adaption by Alexander Korda of HG Wells The Shape of Things To Come shows a shiny complete new utopia. It is a tour-de-force of art deco design, but loses somewhat in believability because of its complete vision.
This is partly explained away by a devastating war, largely influenced by the Great War which had demonstrated the horrendous power of artillery and machine guns. The implication being that the layers of architecture assembled over the years had been literally blown away. So architects and town planners would be working from a metaphorical clean sheet, if you ignore land ownership rights, extensive rubble, legacy building foundations and underground ground works like water pipes, sewers, storm drains and cable ducting.
In real-life, things aren’t that simple. Britain’s major cities were extensively bombed during the war. The country went under extensive rebuilding in the post-war era. Yet even in cities like Coventry that were extensively damaged you still have a plurality of architecture from different ages.
In the City of London, partly thanks to planning permission 17th century architecture exists alongside modern tower blocks.
You can see a mix of modern skyscrapers, tong tau-style tenements and post-war composite buildings that make the most of Hong Kong’s space. Given Hong Kong’s historically strong real estate marketplace, there are very strong incentives to build up new denser land uses, yet layers of architecture from different ages still exist.
COBOL and other ‘dead’ languages.
If you look at computer history, you realise that it is built on layers. Back in the 1960s computing was a large organisation endeavour. A good deal of these systems ran on COBOL, a computer language created in 1958. New systems were being written in COBOL though the mid-2000s for banks and stock brokerages. These programmes are still maintained, many of them still going long after the people who wrote them had retired from the workforce.
https://flic.kr/p/YZM4gp
These systems were run on mainframe computers, though some of these have been replaced by clusters of servers. IBM still serves its Z-series of mainframe computers. Mainframe computing has even been moved to cloud computing services.
In 1966, MUMPS was created out of a National Institute of Health project at Massachusetts General Hospital. The programming language was built out of frustration to support high performing databases. MUMPS has gone on to support health systems around the world and projects within the European Space Agency.
If you believe the technology industry all of these systems have been dead and buried by:
Various computer languages
Operating systems like UNIX, Linux and Windows
Minicomputers
Workstations
PCs and Macs
Smartphones and tablets
The web
At a more prosaic level infrastructure like UK railway companies, German businesses and Japanese government departments have been using fax machines over two decades since email became ubiquitous in businesses and most households in the developed world.
The adoption curve.
The adoption curve is a model that shows how products are adopted. The model was originally proposed by academic Everett Rogers in his book Diffusion of Innovations, published in 1962. The blue line is percentage of new users over time and the yellow line is an idealised market penetration. However, virtually no innovations get total adoption. My parents don’t have smartphones, friends don’t have televisions. There are some people that still live off the grid in developed countries without electricity or indoor plumbing.
When you look at businesses and homes, different technologies often exist side-by-side. In UK households turntables for vinyl records exist alongside streaming systems. Stuffed bookshelves exist alongside laptops, tablets and e-readers.
Yahoo! Internet Life magazine
Yahoo! Internet Life magazine is a microcosm of this layers of the future co-existence . Yahoo! is now a shadow of its former self, but its still valued for its financial news and email. The company was founded in 1994, just over 30 years ago. It was in the vanguard of consumer Internet services alongside the likes of Wired, Excite, Go, MSN, Lycos and Netscape’s Net Center.
Yahoo! Internet Life magazine was published in conjunction with Ziff Davis from 1996 to 2002. At the time when it was being published the web was as much a cultural force as it was a technology that people adopted. It was bigger than gaming or generative AI are now in terms of cultural impact. Yet there was no incongruity in being a print magazine about online media. Both existed side-by-side.
Post-print, Yahoo! Life is now an online magazine that is part of the Yahoo! web portal.
Technology is the journey, not the destination.
Technology and innovation often doesn’t meet the ideals set of it, for instance USB-C isn’t quite the universal data and power transfer panacea that consumers are led to believe. Cables and connectors that look the same have different capabilities. There is no peak reached, but layers of the future laid on each other and often operating in parallel. It’s a similar situation in home cinema systems using HDMI cables or different versions of Bluetooth connected devices.
John Donahue is the outgoing CEO at Nike. Full disclosure, I have Nike in my wardrobe and I own a share in the company at the time of writing. Anyway back to Donahue, according to his biography on the Nike website:
John Donahoe is President & CEO of NIKE, Inc. He is responsible for the continued growth of NIKE’s global business portfolio, which includes the Nike, Jordan and Converse brands. John became president and CEO of NIKE in January 2020 and has served on the Board of Directors since 2014. Previously, he was the president and CEO of ServiceNow and of eBay Inc., and he continues to serve as chairman of the board at PayPal. Earlier in his career, he worked for Bain & Company for nearly two decades, becoming the firm’s president and CEO in 1999. A former basketball player and lifelong sports fan, John received an MBA from Stanford Graduate School of Business and a bachelor’s degree in economics from Dartmouth College.
https://flic.kr/p/2qmh9SQ
John Donahue via the Nike website.
He is a business strategy wonk and has extensive experience in online businesses and online commerce. When Apple had the vision thing, they hired Tim Cook – a famed operations and logistics executive in the technology industry to deliver. John Donahue had been hired to do great operational execution, by a company that was running low on the vision thing.
Donahue may not have had permission to deal with some of the systemic issues in Nike and some of them issues might be due to the board itself.
Penetration
Nike’s collective strategy to move to D2C via its own retail stores and e-tailing platform was ostensively a way to increase profitability and presumably focus on heavier, brand loyal users. I can understand why they might have felt that due to the ubiquity of their products on the backs and feet of customers around the world.
Secondly, prior to 2010 (and in most business schools still) the perceived wisdom was that modern marketing is supposedly about focusing on loyal, heavier buyers; focusing on retention (not acquisition) and return on investment.
However, things changed in 2010; Ehrensberg Bass researchers Byron Sharp and Jenni Romaniuk summarise the marketing science research that their institution had been doing in their books How Brands Growpart one and part two. A key part of their findings was that brand loyalty is positively correlated with brand penetration – if you have higher levels of penetration then your customers will tend to be more loyal. However, if you have lower levels of penetration then your customers will tend to be less loyal. Smaller brands suffer from a double jeopardy of sorts: their sales are lower because they have fewer buyers, who buy the brand less often.
Which kind of makes sense. When you go to a supermarket, you can only buy what’s on the shelf when you’re in the supermarket. It would take a lot to go and try another supermarket to just buy one product. Most people will just buy what they can on their list and maybe look at substitute products.
Nike is a huge brand, but it wilfully reduced its marketing penetration, by reducing the amount of places it appeared. It withdrew or reduced engagement with a range of partners:
Amazon
DSW
Footlocker
JD Sports
Macys
Olympia Sports
Urban Outfitters
Zappos
When Nike goes back to those partners, there will be a shift in the power dynamic away from Nike. These retailers have options because Nike let other brands in to fill the void it chose to leave behind.
On LinkedIn, people have talked about this as Nike has a brand problem. This is far beyond a brand problem; but brand has suffered.
Where’s the community?
Nike’s Londoner celebrated community back in 2018. Nike has continued to win in culture with collaborations including Nigo and Yoon Ahn of Ambush. But the culture didn’t translate into the degree of sales that Nike wanted so far.
Part of the reason for this is Nike’s focus on sub-cultures rather than broader transformational trends in middle class and working class consumers.
On Running have built their brand around running groups. Nike used to have running clubs ran by staff at their retail outlets. They were also were supporting Charlie Dark’s Run Dem Crew in the early 2010s.
When did Nike give competitors space in communities? Was it down to a pivot win focus from retail to online? Given that part of the rationale for Nike’s move to selling direct to customers was to be closer to them, this all seems really odd.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s Nike sold watches. The most famous of which was the Triax range that angled the display to make it glanceable for runners. There were also Nike MP3 players made with Philips. There was also the Nike fuelband, an in-house attempt at a wearable.
The company decided to focus on what it did well and has since made products that are complementary to Apple’s product line like watch straps and apps. Under Donahue’s watch Nike extended itself into the technology space with NFT offerings and metaverse experiences. Both of which seem to have been expensive follies.
Fading stars
Nike was formed at a unique point in time and over the decades has worked with a range of game-changing athletes who were known globally thanks to mass media and the internet.
Nike’s biggest brand and star is still Michael Jordan. The Air Jordan 1 was launched in 1984. That means that the shoe design and when he played in it is older than the young people it is sold to. The linkage between the iconic jumpman performance and his signature shoe is becoming elongated by time.
Granted Adidas sells the Superstar, the Stan Smith, the Samba and Gazelle shoes which are older than the Jordan 1. But Adidas doesn’t lean as heavily on any one design. Instead they rotate in and out of style. Even then Adidas has suffered from problems executing consistently such as the Yeezy scandal.
Nike’s Dunk design comes from 1985, the Air Force 1 came out in 1982. They are not bad shoes, but they will fade in and out of style.
Nike had also been relatively slow to take advantage of the surge of interest in women’s basketball with Caitlin Clark only getting a signature shoe deal this year.
Nike also managed to grossly underestimate the demand for replica jerseys of its England and Australia women’s football teams.
Jordan has since expanded into a brand that Nike has used to sponsor the likes of French football team Paris St Germain.
In golf, Nike parted ways with Tiger Woods this year. Woods is launching his own line instead. While Nike has other golfers on its roster, they don’t have the cultural impact that Woods had on the game.
The brand has better news in football where it has a deep bench of both teams and player sponsorships to draw on. Nike still has a great bench of athletes comparable to rivals like Adidas, and that’s the problem. They glitter like the Milky Way rather than radiate like the sun.
The secondary market
Hypebeasts
The rise of streetwear as an industry took off in the late 1980s. Its origins go further back. You had Dapper Dan in Harlem in the 1980s, football casual culture, Japanese fashions and the California surf culture influence. Soon after it took off you had unobtainable items:
Major Force t-shirts – (Major Force was a Japanese hip hop and house label featuring artists like Hiroshi Fujiwara)
The Tommy Boy Carhartt Detroit jacket
Numerous Stüssy Tribe letterman jackets
Supreme drops from 1994 onwards
Trying to scratch that itch made you a hype beast. I know hypebeasts who are 60 years old and have college age children. The signs of this secondary market being bubbly could be seen back before COVID.
The end of easy money
Nike like other premium brands benefited during COVID-19, when interest rates were low and consumers had money in their pockets. Interest rate rises, inflation and an economic dip took away the easy money. Nike doesn’t seem to have factored this into its expectations. The decline in Chinese economic growth, seems to have hit Nike particularly hard.
The polyurethane problem
Nike shoes took off on them being tradable alternative assets like sports cards, or vintage bottles of wine. Nike trainers have a shelf life due to the materials that they are made from. Adhesive bonds can be reapplied, stitching can be repaired, but polyurethane midsoles crumble over time and can’t be replaced.
The plastic breaks down and and the soles disintegrate. I have had pairs go at the four year mark. Chemistry undermines the collector segment that supports much of the secondary market for Nike products.
A long train running
https://flic.kr/p/bUzHaG
John Donahue was in charge when Nike had unprecedented decline in sales. But there have been issues for a long time. Donahue was executing on a strategy for direct-to-consumer sales via its own retail stores and online, that Nike had committed to prior to his arrival as CEO.
This is obvious from John Donahue’s recruitment process.
Donahue’s reputation was helped by his roles at ServiceNow and eBay
Donahue was a former partner at Bain and a friend to many in Silicon Valley
He received his MBA from Stanford School of Business – which is a great institution and happens to be the one that Phil Knight went to.
What Nike didn’t do was commission a headhunter, hold a beauty parade or anything akin to a rigorous recruitment process in hiring their CEO.
All of which points a board-wide issue rather than just a CEO issue. Which begs the question, will Nike become the sports apparel version of Yahoo!? A rotation of CEOs, intractable board level issues and an inevitable slide out of the limelight? Nike has been wrong-footed before, it was clobbered by the rise of Timberland in the early 1990s driven by the brown boots usefulness for standing on cold wet street corners in the criminal underworld adjacent to hip hop culture. But Nike came back. That was a different Nike with a more energetic Phil Knight and Tinker Hatfield.
The scale of this stumble seems bigger and faster than before. Nike might not be resilient enough to withstand it.
The innovation problem
Former Nike designer Steve McDonald has painted a very different picture on Nike innovation internally within the company than has been seen on the outside. Outdoor sub-brand ACG was ‘never supported‘ when it was launched back in 1989. It was an immensely political environment with star-designer Tinker Hatfield warring with rival designers. Instead Nike used golden birdcage contracts to lock up and stifle talent. Hatfield is in charge of Nike’s Innovation Kitchen, but there seems to be a lack of commercially beneficial output.
Hatfield’s days as a star designer are numbered following several decades at the top and there doesn’t seem to be a star-status worthy successor coming though.
Nike seemed to abandon mainstream sustainable innovation some time after 2012, with its ISPA range as a sporadic tokenism to green issues.
NikeLab – a premium line that fits in with On Running’s apparel seems to receive only sporadic support. All of which implies that product innovation had problems way before Hoka and On Running turned up.
Nike’s Vaporfly running shoes were originally released back in 2018 and by 2020, World Athletics rule changes meant that Nike has a range of competitors providing similar shoes.
The next battle ground has been fought over consumers focusing on wellness and fitness. When Hoka and On Running did turn up, Nike didn’t have much in the tank to respond.
It was really brought home to me in sportswear-loving Merseyside where On Running shoes are the universal choice of everyone from office workers to scallies. Before COVID they’d all be in Nikes with the Air Max 95s being particularly popular.
