Skip to main content

Adidas And Television


Adidas made some headlines this week when their new-ish ceo announced that they were no longer going to use television advertising and were going to put all their advertising money online.

The purpose of this move, according to the ceo, was to quadruple online sales in the next 3 years.

A few thoughts:
  • First, this doesn't sound like a change in ad strategy as much as a change in business strategy. 
"All of our engagement with the consumer is through digital media and we believe in the next three years we can take our online business from approximately 1 billion (euro) to 4 billion (euro) and create a much more direct engagement with consumers." 
From this language, it sounds like Adidas is switching from a typical retail sales strategy to an online direct response strategy.
  • The only problem is, from numbers I've been able to dig up, only 6% of their sales are online. Adidas annual sales are about $17b, about $1b of which is the result of e-commerce. The risk-reward element seems completely out-of-whack to me. Do you really want to spend 100% of your advertising money to support 6% of your sales?
    • This change in strategy could cause serious erosion of distribution at retail. I doubt that retailers will be happy about Adidas spending all its money to support its own online store sales and no money to support theirs.
    • Over several decades, Adidas has spent hundreds of millions - if not billions - on TV and other traditional ad media. In so doing it has established a successful and well-known brand. Milking the brand of its value by converting it to direct response may provide some short-term sales lift, but is likely to do damage long-term.
    • By the way, what TV advertising? I watch almost nothing but sports on TV and in the recent past I can't remember the last time I saw an Adidas spot. This means one of three things: either the whole "no more TV" stuff is horseshit, or their media buying is lousy, or their creative is so weak I can't even remember it. 
    • Or maybe he is not envisioning a refocus to direct response and believes he can boost all sales with a purely online advertising effort. Let's do some math.
                                                            
      In the past year, Adidas grew by 16%. Projecting that growth over the next 3 years they would be at about $25.5 billion in sales. Quadrupling their online sales without growing their retail business would leave them with about $20 billion in sales. So even if they achieved their magnificent online growth, they still have to grow their retail business by about 10% annually to get to that $25.5 number. I'm curious to see how well they can do at achieving 10% annual growth in offline sales with 100% online advertising. This should be fun.






    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    The Simple-Minded Guide To Marketing Communication

    We marketing people have a dreadful habit of taking the obvious and making it incomprehensible. So today I would like to go against the grain and take the obvious and make it more obvious. If you are someone who has to make decisions about how to spend marketing dollars, here are some principles I believe in for simplifying and clarifying your thinking. The first thing we have to understand about marketing communication is that there are no absolutes. There are just likelihoods and probabilities. When making communication decisions, our job is to assess likelihoods and probabilities. In other words, precision guessing . We need to reckon which of the many alternatives we are faced with has the highest probability of producing the result we are looking for with the budget we have. A second principle is to understand the limits of what we do. We don't have as much power to create business greatness as we think we do. There are too many important aspects of business success that a...
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    Technology, Progress, And Irresponsible Stupidity

    The world does not move in straight lines. We expect things to go one way, but they unexpectedly go another. In 2000, when the Prius was introduced, most commentators saw a big future for hybrid vehicles. In 2009, a study by JPMorgan confidently asserted " 20% of all vehicles sold in U.S. to be hybrids by 2020. " In 2010, Consumer Reports said " 39 percent are considering buying a hybrid or plug-in for their next car. " And yet, as of April 2016, hybrid cars represented less than 2% of car sales in the US. Their share of market has dropped by 50% since 2013. A car dealer I know told me "we can't give 'em away." If you think the reason for this is the popularity of electric vehicles, think again. Electric vehicles represent less than 1% of car sales in the US. In the early 1990's the Soviet Union collapsed. We thought "liberal democracy" had become triumphant and would be the model for world governance. Today "liberal democracy...
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    How Ad Industry Destroys Brand Value

    The advertising industry prides itself on being brand builders. Building successful brands is supposed to be the essence of what we do. But in recent years the ad industry has been guilty of cheapening some of the most important brands it controls -- its own. I am going to be picking on WPP because it is the biggest offender. But to some degree the same can probably be said about each of the major holding companies. WPP is the owner of some of the most famous and worthy brands in the history of the ad business: JWT, Ogilvy, Y&R and Grey. It has been systematically dismantling the value in these brands. Today they are splinters of what they were. The holding companies have undermined their agencies from the top down and from the bottom up. What a holding company usually does is buy successful brands and manage them at arms length to, presumably, add value to shareholders. Examples of successful holding companies are Berkshire Hathaway and Procter & Gamble. Nobody buys a Berkshir...
    Post a Comment
    Read more