Nike Takes on March Madness

Like every other year, March Madness has taken over America. Right now, we are caught in the heat of “The Big Dance, coming off of the first two rounds of play and headed straight into the Sweet Sixteen tonight. By the end of next weekend, the field of sixty-five Division I college basketball teams will be narrowed down to two, and on the following Monday, a new team will replace the Kansas Jayhawks as the NCAA Champions, cutting down the nets in Detroit to the tune of “One Shining Moment.”

From a marketing standpoint, there are so many fascinating things about this annual tournament and the “madness” that comes with it. In my opinion, March Madness is one of the most powerfully unifying sports forces that America has ever seen, behind the Super Bowl of course. People who don’t even care about sports fill out brackets. CBS, a major network, devotes its programming during the first two rounds of the tournament entirely to game coverage; if a games goes long, the local news doesn’t even air! And for goodness sake, “bracketology” is a real word now.

On Wednesday, in class, we discussed the risk Song Airlines took in selling their brand as a spirit. Their commercials did not mention or even show an airplane; Song hoped to portray themselves as an emotion. Our discussion reminded me a series of Air Jordan (a Nike brand) ads that have been airing throughout the NCAA tournament. The first is a scene in which a police officer in Illinois tickets a driver from North Carolina from going 36 in a 35 MPH zone, referencing the 2005 title game in which the Tarheels defeated the Fighting Illini, who came into the game with an unbelievable 37-1 record.



This one shows a family, observably University of Washington fans, unwilling to accept a daughter’s new boyfriend who went to school at UConn. A clip is shown of the 1998 Sweet Sixteen game between the two schools in which Richard Hamilton hit a last second, buzzer beating shot that allowed UConn to advance to the next round.



The next is a father talking about his daughter’s birthday, April 5, 2003, also the night that Carmelo Anthony, who eventually led Syracuse to the national title that year, scored 33 points against Texas in the Final Four. At the time, Texas was the only #1 seed left in the tournament and the favorite to win it all. The Longhorns, led by T.J. Ford, saw their hopes of winning a national championship dashed by the eventual third overall pick of the 2003 NBA Draft.



I absolutely love these commercials. Not only do they show Nike’s knowledge of their customer base and their willingness to connect with them, but they succeed in doing what Song failed to do. These commercials aren’t explicitly advertising Air Jordan shoes. Instead, Nike is selling a certain spirit, an emotion. They are appealing to the customers who have experienced absolute heartbreak during the NCAA tournament. Regardless of how long ago that moment occurred, Nike assures them that it’s okay to still feel that way and almost encourages them to continue harboring those feelings.

What is ironic is that Nike does almost the opposite of Song. The emotions that these advertisements are meant to convey are in no way positive. These moments haunt hardcore basketball fans for years. I remember watching that game when Syracuse beat Texas. Those feelings of disappointment, angst, and even hatred came flooding back as soon as I saw this commercial for the first time. Yet, I thought to myself, “Wow, what a great commercial. What a great concept for Nike to use.”

The only problem with this campaign is the following ad:

Just like the others, right? WRONG! The game being referenced is not one that stands out. In fact, my friend's boyfriend, a Syracuse alum and diehard Orange basketball fan, can't remember this supposed domination by Ray Allen. Maybe this was a game from a Big East Tournament in the mid 90’s, but it definitely cannot be considered as memorable and epic as the games in the other three commercials. The only logical explanation for this “miss” by Air Jordan is the fact that Ray Allen is a member of their brand. Perhaps they felt the need to make him the focal point of one of the commercials.

It’s not that they completely fabricated the game; they didn’t do that. They simply exaggerated the nostalgic effect of a game that occurred almost 15 years ago to make the campaign cohesive. Most people probably wouldn’t even notice, but Syracuse fans definitely would. And a few UConn fans are probably scratching their heads a bit, too.

I think Nike should have really thought about airing this commercial because while most people that see it will think it fits in with the rest, a small percentage of viewers will be turned off. It is airing during the tournament, a time when diehard fans are definitely tuning in.

Now, every time I see an Air Jordan commercial, I won't help but think of the time Nike tried to trick America into believing that Ray Allen's performance against Syracuse was comparable to North Carolina's run to the Championship in 2005. Nice try, Nike.

The Persuaders

Dr. Rapaille believes that consumers are driven by unconscious needs. We seldom understand why we do what we do, leading us to make up something that makes sense when asked about our motivations. He says that the key to the psyche of consumers is a 3 step process of getting past reason, through emotion, to the primal core where all purchase decisions lie.

1. He conducts focus groups, asking them how they feel about a certain word and how that concept is sold to them. At this point, Rapaille doesn’t care what they say, he just wants them to feel intelligent.
2. Rapaille doesn’t want his focus groups to be logical or intelligent. He asks them to tell a story as if they were speaking to an alien child. People don’t understand what they are doing during this stage, and that is exactly what he wants.
3. The focus group is encouraged to go back the first time they experienced what they’re trying to understand. This is where the primal urges can be seen, or as Rapaille calls it, the Reptilian hotbutton. According to him, this reptilian hotbutton, or code, has nothing to do with intellect, and it always wins.

I thought the example Rapaille provided was hilarious. He told a French cheese company that they were going “off code” by advertising their products in a way that did not appeal to Americans. In France, cheese is alive and does not belong in the refridgerator; however, Americans treat cheese very differently and perceived the French cheese as unsafe.

Rapaille’s clients can use the code to improve a product. Competitors can then replicate that product. However, without the knowledge of why the product was created that way, the product does not have the same effect.

Song Airlines’ main goal was to establish a solid brand rather than promoting the benefits of the product they were offering. Of course, they wanted to mention that their airline offered flights at reasonable prices and that the in-flight meals were fresh and organic, but they believed that it was more important to invent a new culture of flying. The president of Song argued that a company can only be the sole provider of a benefit, like an individual TV for every seat, for a finite period of time. On the other hand, the company’s spirit cannot be recreated. Song focused on the heart rather than the head, creating advertisements that did not even mention planes; instead, they invoked emotions and feelings that could be classified as “Song.”

As an idea, I think this campaign was very innovative. Like the video kept mentioning, consumers are becoming more and more immune to advertising. We no longer want facts shoved in our faces about how great a product is; instead, we are drawn to creativity and humor. By selling something intangible, the Song brand, the company is able to convey an attitude that is welcoming and thoughtful. It is absolutely true that marketers must adjust to the changing perceptions of customers. Today, consumers are asking, “What does this product mean?” not “What does this product do?” Brands must go beyond the five senses. The desire to buy must be more deeply rooted than before; consumers want to belong, and brands can create a meaning system for them.

At the same time, though, I do not think this was the right thing for Song to do. As was proven, customers were confused about what the company even was. Was it a travel agency? An airline? A store? The advertisements actually had the opposite effect of what was intended; they took away from the product instead of enhancing it. While the ads were smoothly executed and were generally appealing, it was unclear as to what was being sold. Yes, Song was trying to sell certain emotions, but if those emotions are not connected to the brand explicitly enough, especially with a new brand, the ad is bound to fail.

Airline tickets are a fairly expensive good. I feel like there is a curve to this idea of selling an intangible concept. I think it would work really well with cheap goods, like a snack food or article of clothing because these goods require less disposable income, and consumers are more willing to take “risks.” However, an airline ticket is something that requires more consideration before purchase. For most people, price is the bottom line, and they are willing to sacrifice things like a good meal or in-flight movie for a lower price. Song’s emotion provoking commercial may be well received, but might not translate to actual purchase decisions. But after a certain price point, the emotional appeal can be effective again. Someone doesn’t buy a set of Louis Vuitton luggage because it’s so much better quality than Samsonite; they buy it because it makes them feel a certain way. That’s an assumption, though.

Kenna's Dilemma

The most important thing that I learned from the “Kenna’s Dilemma” chapter was the relevance of context in gaining customer insights. I thought it was very interesting how the results of the taste test did not necessarily provide Coca-Cola with the answer to why they were losing market share, especially because most would assume that taste is the most important aspect of the beverage industry.

When testing a product, it is imperative to consider the environment in which the test is given. In the case of Coca-Cola, they found that consumers preferred Pepsi in a sip test. So when Coca-Cola tweaked their formula to taste more like Pepsi, they were simply responding to the findings of the taste test; in essence, they thought they were giving consumers what they wanted. However, the problem was that customers rely on more than the taste factor when buying soda. According to Gladwell, “we transfer to our sensation of the Coca-Cola taste all of the unconscious associations we have of the brand, the image, the can, and even the mistakable red of the logo.” Coca-Cola assumed their loss in market share had to be attributed to taste, when, in fact, the problem was brand imagery. They should have realized that, while a blind sip test seemed like an unbiased method, it was not the usual context in which Coca-Cola was consumed.

While it may sometimes be difficult or impossible, simulating the environment of use when testing a product is the only way to guarantee the results. Gladwell warns against letting “the guys in the white lab coats take over,” which also had a negative impact in Kenna’s case.

I think this is a dilemma that consumers can potentially face every time they shop. When I try on a pair of shoes, a couple of walks down the length of the aisle are usually not enough to determine the level of comfort and stability the shoes will provide during a long day of walking around campus. Every year around Christmastime, I go to Sephora to pick out a new bottle of perfume. After a few disappointing purchases, I now ask for a sample size of three or four scents and try them out over the next week before buying an entire bottle. Like the Coca-Cola taste test, a perfume that smells great after one spray in the store may not be what I want to smell like every single day.

Another concept I related to was the perception of “new” as “bad.” The Aeron chair was a great example of this phenomenon. Customers initially gave the Aeron bad ratings because it was not aesthetically pleasing. To them, “the word ‘ugly’ was just a proxy for ‘different,’” forgetting that comfort is the driving force behind a great chair, not necessarily its design.

In market tests, the testers were not actually purchasing the chair. I think this had an effect on their perception of the Aeron. If they were really in the market for a durable chair, would its appearance have such a significant impact on their purchase decision? If your goal was to buy the best chair possible, you would choose the one that was least likely to cause back problems, the one that provided the best support and greatest level of comfort.

Clearly, those that rated the Aeron, as well as All in the Family and The Mary Tyler Moore Show, really could not overcome the initial newness factor to really evaluate the product. After the Aeron began to achieve high sales volume, customers’ perception of its aestheticism skyrocketed. Those two TV shows are now remembered as classic programs that continue to have cultural relevance today.

I guess market research is not always a good indicator of what will actually happen when the product hits the market place. I think this is similar to the Halo Effect, where a customer’s “yes” to “would you buy this product?” does not always translate into an actual purchase decision. No matter what precautions a company takes to make sure their results are as “accurate” as possible, there does not seem to be a way to actually perform market research in a way to generate perfect solutions.