Be skeptical of that $358m Puma figure - analysis of value through media exposure has been discredited for several reasons. For starters it usually only takes in to consideration the amount of time a logo appears on screen for and extrapolates value on the basis of the cost that the same duration of advertising. This does not weight the value of size, position , position to relative to competition, sentiment towards the athlete etc, in essence does it give the sponsor control over the marketing message or brand position. Nor does it say anything about the relative value of the exposure - as the prices for the advertising in the particular time that the event took place this is highly distorted, and says nothing about how much other athletes exposure was worth etc. It is akin to saying that some woman in a D&G shirt on at the Superbowl, and gets 10 seconds on TV because a camera man and producer happen to be momentarily fascinated with her breasts, is worth $1m to Dolce and Gabbana .
One other objection I have to this method in this particular situation is that nothing is said about how much of it is attributable to Bolt being sponsored by Puma - the only thing that bolt had on that was a result of his sponsorship was a pair of shoes, much of the exposure would likely have come through the sponsorship of the Jamaican Olympic uniforms and would have been received if he had been sponsored by any one.
I would not have a clue what I am talking about…just spinning some crap. It is you who knows what/how Bolt is going to sign
Dazed
Aside from your dealings, how familiar with China’s negotiating culture? Your feelings certainly aren’t consistent with the experiences of friends and family that have had extensive dealings with the Chinese.
How familiar am I? Very familiar. Obviously your friends and family members have not been dealing with Chinese successfully therefore bad experiences. However, I have and majority of my dealings with Chinese has been very profitable and successful.
Currently, we are operating two businesses from China - HK, and Shenzhen. Quite familiar.
And I would agree with CF;
Let’s just say the money would need to be that big to lock him in that way- and to pay out of existing contracts.
Chinese would be prepared to pay UP FRONT and in CASH!
Why would they be otherwise chasing Bolt? LOL…What, to offer him a 5 yr contract? And Puma would say, yeah sure
They had very fruitful deals actually, however they also came away with a great deal more respect for the Chinese as tough negotiators than you exhibit. One of the things the Chinese are reputed for in negotiations is their art of deception and comfortable opening margins in negotiation … I’m just wondering if your operations could have been even more profitable if your attitude had not bee to “crunch them”.
I grew up with a friend who’s uncle was a Chinese business man and diplomat, he was amazed at the rents that western businessmen would leave on the table because they thought they were getting a good deal early in the negotiation process.
Excuse me? What would you like to know? I am going to spill my guts here only because you asked?
LOL
Anyway…I was wrong. It is exactly how Dazed claims it to be…the Chinese are deceiving people and hard negotiators. I never had anything to do with them.
Happy? I am over this discussion. Do not bother responding because I certainly won’t.
I’m sorry about that Sev, I was actually editing it when I went to dinner as I realised I had misinterpreted what you had said, in the mean time you posted. Sorry for the confusion.
probably doesn’t fit their marketing strategy. Tthey don’t perceive themselves as a sporting good company more a luxury leisure goods one. This is explained in this book
sigh… PUMA’s marketing strategy seeks to establish the brand as an icon that
extends its lead in the Sportlifestyle market.The key to achieving this
position is to maintain a culturally relevant message that connects with
our consumers despite a cluttered media environment.
I’m not saying he is wrong or you’re wrong, just commenting on the fact that they’ve released numerous products in the running shoe market recently with essentially 0 advertising (in comparison to competitors within the same market) in major markets. Maybe you should read what I wrote instead of acting like a dick.
They did increase marketing spend by 20% (~80m) to coincide with the games last year - killed their margins - suggesting they are still emphasising sporting goods to some degree.
In part this is true but also part of the benefit as well. it is supportive of traditional ads but also benefits are accrued by exposure for other reasons or advertisers in a piggy-back fashion.
if that was truly your intention then I apologise.
From what I understand while they produce sports goods (obvious) they aren’t interested in being the market leader in volume. That doesn’t mean they wont develop new products Brand Strategy
[i]
2005 was a milestone year in the company’s evolution, marking the end of Phase III and the transition to Phase IV of PUMA’s corporate
development plan. Phase III saw the PUMA brand emerge as one of the most influential in the world, transforming from an alternative brand to a global icon with broader desirability. The brand’s message was refined and its voice was clarified. In the process, PUMA created a new market segment in Sportlifestyle.
Phase IV now brings an evolved strategy: To be the most desirable Sportlifestyle company in the world. Maintaining desirability as our number one priority, we will use design, innovation and imagination to further extend the PUMA brand and select new areas of Sportlifestyle, developing into one of the very few true multi-category companies.[/i]
Puma is purring again. Under 40-year-old CEO Jochen Zeitz, the German athletic shoemaker has become one of the world’s hottest fashion brands. From casual and sports apparel to roller skates and sunglasses, Puma’s leaping-cat logo suddenly seems to be everywhere. Sales soared 52% last year, to $1.1 billion, even as much larger rivals Nike, Adidas, and Reebok battled lackluster growth.
It’s a remarkable turnaround. Puma, which once vied with Adidas as the leading global seller of sports footwear, had faded from view by the 1980s after failing to update its product line. By 1993, the company was $100 million in debt. Enter Zeitz, a German-born dynamo who is fluent in six languages and an avid amateur pilot. A former marketing executive at Colgate-Palmolive Co., he was recruited as Puma’s marketing chief in 1991. He moved into the top job two years later, becoming the youngest CEO of any publicly listed German company at the time. “I’m not a fashionista,” Zeitz says. “But I could see the Puma brand had tremendous potential.”
Zeitz’s boldest stroke was to reposition the brand, stressing fashion over sports performance. He brought in designer Jil Sander and model Christy Turlington to design and promote new products, including a $195 sneaker. To lure young shoppers, he introduced items such as roller skates with fluorescent wheels. “We realized that to appeal to a young lifestyle, we needed to get away from traditional athletic looks,” Zeitz says.
Zeitz scored big on celebrity endorsements, too, signing Serena Williams to a five-year contract, just as she was beginning her ascent to the No. 1 spot in women’s tennis. The contract expired early this year, and Puma is in talks for a possible renewal. But the company looks robust enough to keep growing without her. Zeitz is forecasting 50% pretax profit growth this year, with sales up 30%. Not bad for a company that was on the endangered-species list.
John, are you that dense? Really? Copying and pasting irrelevant stuff? T
I understand their goal is to appear upscale and as a “luxury” sports/athletic brand. I know they aren’t trying to max out volumes. That is nothing new and their style has always had that going for it for well over a decade now and have always tried to appear more “European” in their designs compared to many of their competitors. What doesn’t make sense is that they have released about 6-8 pairs of shoes in <18 months, almost all of which are specifically running shoes (ie cross country shoes, track flats, etc.) that are not for fashion or street wear (unless you are comfortable wearing a track flat walking around the street) and they have done very very little to advertise those. Compare that to Nike, Adidas, Brooks, Saucony… all of which do substantial advertising towards the running shoe buying and wearing population and you can see the issue.
“He that knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool, shun him.”
He that follows an outdated program of an uneducated “master” and he who denies that his “master” knew very little about it and yet he that advocates it as a superior method is a bigger fool than the “master” himself, pity him."
