OT - Nike tells University of Tennessee to shut up and do what they're told

Submitted by Powderd Toast on

A few months back the University of Tennessee jumped off the Adidas ship for Nike then oddly changed some team branding without much explanation. FOIA requests were put in. They were basically laughed at by Nike. The University felt some pressure after a couple of months and finally released more info. Basically Nike is taking creative control and putting their own people in place at the University to make sure they control the brand. Sounds very DB esque. Take it for what it's worth with all the uniformz talk lately.

Deadspin has a pretty good write-up on the situation if you want me info. http://deadspin.com/nike-to-tennessee-dont-talk-about-what-were-doing-1…

Magnus

May 18th, 2015 at 10:08 AM ^

Yep. Even in high school, we have a rep who does this for a group of schools in our area. If we have any issues with gear (merchandise, uniforms, etc.) or want to order new stuff, there's one guy in charge of making the connection between us and the parent company.

umbig11

May 18th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^

You have it backwards no matter how Deadspin reported it. The university controls the brand. Nike controls the product. Anything Nike does when changes are made to the uniforms, names, and marketing are initiated and signed off by the university. For example, Nike cannot get rid of the university trademark of Lady Vols. That would be like Nike telling Michigan you are no longer the Wolverines.

death by wolverine

May 18th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^

Ehhh.This is a little dumb. What's wrong with not exposing your new gear/uniforms etc. until Nike wants. I'm sure all of this stuff is in the contract they signed. I'm sure Nike just doesn't say hey school X, have total control. It's just not the way it works.

Wolverine Devotee

May 18th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^

Michigan already has gone through the process of making the Block M the only logo.

Which is good. One of the 12 good things DB did. 

Wolverine Devotee

May 18th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^

  1. Logo thing
  2. Extending John Beilein
  3. Making up a plan so ALL sports at Michigan have the best facilities in the nation, by far
  4. New Big House scoreboards in 2011
  5. Saying 'no' to the sleeved MBB jerseys in 2013 that adidas proposed
  6. Hiring Erik Bakich
  7. Hiring Kim Barnes Arico
  8. Adding Men's Lacrosse
  9. Adding Women's Lacrosse
  10. Fixing the format of "Youth Day" so people don't get cut off in lines and come away empty handed
  11. Scheduling great future Football non-conference games
  12. Being an idiot and sending emails to fans not knowing that people would eventually find out

ShadowStorm33

May 18th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^

Are these good things? We're a few years in now, and I'm not so sure. Women's basketball hasn't been too bad, although the previous coach seemed pretty good as well. Baseball has been disappointing, particularly given the success we had been having up until the last 5 or so years...

Wolverine Devotee

May 18th, 2015 at 11:18 AM ^

Rich Maloney's last two years were 30+ loss seasons. 

Bakich has been to the B1G Tournament every single year, the win total has been going up every single year and Michigan has finished higher in the B1G every single year.

T-3rd in the B1G this year. Big things are gonna be happening if they finish higher next year.

And WBB has been to the postseason every year under KBA and she has the highest winning percentage in Michigan history.

Both programs are progressing at a really good rate considering both coaches are in their 3rd year.

The Mad Hatter

May 18th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^

the old scoreboards. 

Also not fond of spending huge money on facilities for non-revenue sports.

Noble effort though.  Finding things that DB did well is like saying, well yes, I had cancer, but look at all the weight I lost!

tbeindit

May 18th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^

The only thing for me about the non-revenue investment is how that pays off long-term.  There are certainly a bunch of teams that will never, ever break even on those investments, but being able to have a ton of non-revenue teams competing for national championships certainly seems great, especially if a lot of the money comes from donations.

Along with this, I also think it's hard to project where exactly athletics will be in 20, 30, or 50 years down the line.  Football and basketball own everything right now, but think about how much hockey and soccer will change with games being broadcasted on BTN.  Soccer might be the fastest growing sport in America and who knows if other sports will rise or fall by then.

Obviously, an investment of that magnitude had to rationalized by more than "what if" a sport becomes more popular, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing at all to improve those sports across the board in a long-lasting way as long as you don't unnecessarily burden the remaining sports.  For me, I think Brandon was too ambitious and burdened the football season ticket holders, but overall, I liked the plan, just wish it was spaced out a bit more to absorb some of the costs more efficiently.

danimal1968

May 18th, 2015 at 2:04 PM ^

so if they were willing to make the donations to pay for them, I'm not going to complain.

Season ticket prices and PSDs go to fund the operating budget from which scholarships and coach salaries are paid.

Facility donations go to fund the capital budget from which things like building projects are funded.

These new facilities did nothing to drive up season ticket costs.

JonnyHintz

May 18th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^

On my list, I had:

1. The logo
2. Facility upgrades (which included the scoreboards)
3. Adding lacrosse (counted men's and women's as one action)
4. I also had the emails. It was great, but not in a good way. You'd think a former CEO would have a better handle on the PR aspects of the job and his actions.
5. Firing Rich Rod.
6. The addition of night games

BlueinLansing

May 18th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^

you need to get out more.  Many sports they aren't, or will even be the best the Big Ten when they are finished upgrading.

 

I give DB credit for recognizing Michigan needed to upgrade its facilities, in some cases badly.  He went out, put together a plan, raised money and marketed that plan to alumni in the most DB way possible.  Good for him and Michigan but nowhere near the best in the country.

LSAClassOf2000

May 18th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^

The entire presentation that Tennessee apparently got from Nike is here - LINK

Much of it seems pretty boilerplate from the Nike standpoint, although you get a glimpse into why "Lady Vols" probably got the boot as an official term (Nike found it to be inconsistent with the notion of "One Tennessee" as a marketing position) although the audit seems to recommend that women's basketball and rowing keep the "Lady Vols" script. 

Jason80

May 18th, 2015 at 11:25 AM ^

I don't buy it Nike is the best and whatever they want to do is great--everything else is crap! I know this because of the billions of dollars of adds I've been exposed to in my life.

Sincerely,
A loyal fanboy

StephenRKass

May 18th, 2015 at 11:26 AM ^

That article was disturbing. Especially reading the email telling Jimbo Fisher to revise his son's wardrobe and eliminate the UA FSU sweatshirt. The gall. I'd like to see Nike or Adidas pull that kind of crap on Harbaugh and his kids.

Nike needs Michigan more than Michigan needs Nike. I'd rather have Michigan dictate the terms of how things will happen, and retain full control. It is about money, but it is not all about money. Michigan has made some choices (how advertising is used, for example) where we have not made as much money, by keeping ads out of certain venues and settings. 

I'm still on the fence as regards the uniforms supplier/vendor. I just hope the admin doesn't sell Michigan out for a few bucks, and see our "brand" changed into a ludicrous abomination. Which ANY of the vendors (Adidas, Nike, UA) are all too capable of doing.

MgoBlueprint

May 18th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^

Adidas has done the same thing. Years ago, maybe 2003 or 2004. West point was playing Maryland in lacrosse. At that time west point was sponsored by Adidas. The players were wearing under armour shirts while warming up. And Adidas rep made the players change or cover them up. The point is, they give these guys a ton of apparel for exposure. I'm sure nike gives jumbo enough nike gear to clothe a village. I don't see why his grandson was wearing a ua fsu shirt.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

karpodiem

May 18th, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^

you understand how contracts work, right?

Just have it written in the contract that Michigan has to first approve any and all apparel designs/branding with the AD first. 

Preferablay someone in the AD with taste.

Tennessee wasn't paying attention, Nike wanted to quickly get a return on the money they are now paying Tennessee, and switched things up without first consulting Tennessee(because that would slow down sales, and because it wasn't probably written into their contract) and now Tennessee is not happy? Nike is just trying to make money asap since they just dropped a few million to outfit Tennessee.

This is a basic business/life skill - pay attention to your assets (your brand/images/logos/whatever) and have ultimate control of what represents your University.

It's fine that Nike is trying to make money on the deal - just have ultimate say over the Nike designs so it doesn't embarass you.

This is actually a good lesson for Michigan. Requires competent administration though, in many different departments/silos.

Mr. Owl

May 18th, 2015 at 11:38 AM ^

Basically I want for whoever makes the uniforms to make and supply the uniforms and keep their big ideaz to things that leak on the internet & we thank Harbaugh never happened.

Nike to me always feels like they are one email away from replacing the winged helmet with a Nike Swoosh logo.  And if you don't like it shut the ____ up.  We're not in the business of making you look classy, we're in the business of selling crap to 13 year old kids.  We're Nike, you're just a commodity.

ijohnb

May 18th, 2015 at 12:06 PM ^

Take a look at everything in 1997, the home football uniforms, the away football uniforms, the basketball uniforms, the basketball alternates, everything - do exactly that, nothing more, nothing less, and you have yourself a winner.

Esterhaus

May 18th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^

 
Is that brand people are continually inserting themselves into day-to-day affairs as means of justifying their jobs. They add value during new product launches but most other times during product life they just gum up the works. I have served as outside IP counsel for decades and brand people contribute the least value typically of all the corporate teams I interface with. Michigan should dictate brand-related terms to its vendors and with exception of the occasional brand audit the University should keep the brand people far, far away from campus.

maizenbluenc

May 18th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^

what controls Nike established during their first Michigan contract. I for one am not a fan of Nike owning the rights to Maize.

If we stick with Adidas - perhaps an increased level of control comes out of it (i.e., we keep Adidas, but they conform to our requirements better - and maybe replace their design staff with someone with a clue.)

BryanAAMI

May 18th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^

On side note: "Sparky" the ASU mascot was designed long ago by a fellow that was fired from Disney... He distain for Walt led him to fashion the devil mascot with Walt's likeness

Umich97

May 18th, 2015 at 11:29 PM ^

However, I did like the black update for ASU. Albeit, I'd also be cool with some retro designs, such as the white face masks they had when Tillman was playing.

Can't embed from phone app, or I would.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

TruBluMich

May 18th, 2015 at 2:25 PM ^

Did it occur to anyone that Adidas has friends at Tennessee still. Those friends may have been getting nice incentives and were lobbying for Adidas. Wouldn't surprise me if all of this is Adidas giving Nike some bad press.