April 26, 2024

Advertising: Adidas Angers All Blacks Fans With Jersey Prices

AUCKLAND, New Zealand

WHEN the All Blacks, New Zealand’s national rugby team, revealed late last month the shirts the team would wear for the Rugby World Cup, which begins here in September, it was a proud moment for Adidas, the designer of the uniform and the chief sponsor of the team.

“The All Blacks jersey is one of the most powerful symbols of New Zealand pride, worn by the most successful sports team in the world,” David Huggett, the Adidas country manager for New Zealand, said in a news release heralding the introduction of the uniform.

But in the days that followed, fans in New Zealand, where rugby takes precedence over all other sports, discovered that the shirts were being sold online in the United States for about half the local price of 220 New Zealand dollars, or $182, and in Britain for only slightly more than the United States price.

The discrepancy was picked up by local news outlets, which questioned why New Zealanders were being asked by Adidas, a German company, to pay so much more than consumers in other countries for the official shirt of their own team.

The headline for a story on The New Zealand Herald’s Web site on Aug. 4 read: “All Black jersey reaction: ‘You’re ripping off the NZ public.’ ” The article detailed complaints from readers posted on the paper’s social networking pages.

A controversy had begun to build, bringing the vociferous passions of sports fans into conflict with the financial logic of a multinational company. For Adidas, it became a lesson in the risks of associating a corporate brand with a national obsession.

It is not uncommon for companies to charge different rates for the same product in different countries, but Mike Lee, a senior marketing lecturer at Auckland University who specializes in consumer attitudes toward brands, said the Adidas situation was different because the All Blacks were seen by many in New Zealand as a sacrosanct national treasure.

A few days after the initial outcry, the furor escalated when news outlets reported that Adidas had told Internet retailers selling to international markets to remove New Zealand from their delivery options.

“At that point I think the whole thing took sort of a nasty turn,” Dr. Lee said. “It went from simply a question of economics and costs to an ethical issue of corporate hegemony.”

Adidas has since apologized for that decision and withdrawn the instruction, saying it had intended only to protect New Zealand retailers.

Still, the level of national outrage rose further. Adidas met with retailers but refused to reduce its wholesale price. So the retailers took action themselves.

The country’s largest sporting goods chain, Rebel Sport, announced on Aug. 9 that it would cut the retail price in its shops to 170 New Zealand dollars, leaving itself only a “very, very slim” margin, according to its managing director, Rod Duke.

•

The price reduction, also carried out by some smaller retailers, was welcomed by many fans, and Rebel Sport’s stock of the jerseys has nearly sold out, Mr. Duke said. He said he thought that although his company was bearing the financial burden of the price cut, Adidas would suffer in the long term from damage to its brand, which would hurt future sales.

“We’ve had a number of customers come into the stores, throw Adidas products on the floor and say, ‘Look, you might as well burn this,’ ” Mr. Duke said.

The value of Adidas’s sponsorship deal for the All Blacks shirts has never been made public. When it was signed in 2008, The National Business Review reported that it was similar in size to the company’s contract with the German soccer club Bayern Munich and Nike’s deal with the Inter Milan soccer club. The newspaper said that would place the contract’s value at 21 million to 28 million New Zealand dollars a year.

Juli Clausen, a spokeswoman for the New Zealand Rugby Union, declined to disclose the size of Adidas’s investment in the sport in New Zealand, citing commercial sensitivity, but said the 11-year deal was worth “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1fd50a16a55d9564109a8a355fb629dc

Adidas Angers All Blacks Fans With Price Policy

AUCKLAND — When the All Blacks, New Zealand’s national rugby team, revealed late last month the new shirts the team would wear for the Rugby World Cup, which begins here in September, it was a proud moment for Adidas, the designer of the uniform and the chief sponsor of the team.

“The All Blacks jersey is one of the most powerful symbols of New Zealand pride, worn by the most successful sports team in the world,” David Huggett, the Adidas country manager for New Zealand, declared in a news release heralding the introduction of the new uniform.

But in the days that followed, fans in New Zealand, where rugby takes precedence over all other sports, discovered that the shirts were being sold online in the United States for about half the local price of 220 New Zealand dollars, or $182, and in the United Kingdom for only slightly more than the U.S. price.

The discrepancy was picked up by major local news outlets, which questioned why New Zealanders were being asked by Adidas, a German company, to pay so much more than consumers in other countries for the official shirt of their own team.

The headline for a story
on The New Zealand Herald’s Web site on Aug. 4 read: “All Black jersey reaction: ‘You’re ripping off the NZ public.”’ The article detailed complaints from readers posted on the paper’s social networking pages. “It’s like they’re robbing New Zealanders. I’d suggest a boycott,” an Internet user giving the name Steve McAteer was quoted as saying.

A controversy had begun to build, bringing the vociferous passions of sports fans into conflict with the financial logic of a multinational company. For Adidas, it became a lesson in the risks of associating a corporate brand with a national obsession.

It is not uncommon for companies to charge different rates for the same product in different countries, but Mike Lee, a senior marketing lecturer at Auckland University who specializes in consumer attitudes toward brands, said the Adidas situation was different because the All Blacks were seen by many in New Zealand as a sacrosanct national treasure.

A few days after the initial outcry, the furor escalated when news outlets reported that Adidas had told Internet retailers selling to international markets to remove New Zealand from their delivery options.

“At that point I think the whole thing took sort of a nasty turn,” Dr. Lee said. “It went from simply a question of economics and costs to an ethical issue of corporate hegemony.”

Adidas has since apologized for that action and withdrawn the instruction, saying it had intended only to protect New Zealand retailers.

Still, the level of national opprobrium rose further. Adidas met with retailers but refused to reduce its wholesale price. So the retailers took action themselves.

The country’s largest sporting goods chain, Rebel Sport, announced Aug. 9 that it would cut the retail price in its shops to 170 dollars, leaving itself only a “very, very slim” margin, according to its managing director, Rod Duke.

The price reduction, also carried out by some smaller retailers, was welcomed by many fans, and Rebel Sport’s stock of the jerseys has nearly sold out, Mr. Duke said. He said he believed that although his company was bearing the financial burden of the price cut, Adidas would suffer in the long term from damage to its brand, which would hurt future sales.

“We’ve had a number of customers come into the stores, throw Adidas products on the floor and say, ‘Look, you might as well burn this,”’ Mr. Duke said.

The exact value of Adidas’s sponsorship deal for the All Blacks shirts has never been made public. When it was signed in 2008, The National Business Review reported that it was similar in size to the company’s contract with the German soccer club Bayern Munich and Nike’s deal with the Inter Milan soccer club. The newspaper said that would place the contract’s value between 21 million and 28 million dollars a year.

Juli Clausen, a spokeswoman for the New Zealand Rugby Union, declined to disclose the exact size of Adidas’s investment in the sport in New Zealand, citing commercial sensitivity, but said the 11-year deal was worth “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1fd50a16a55d9564109a8a355fb629dc

Distilling the Wisdom of C.E.O.’s

IMAGINE 100 people working at a large company. They’re all middle managers, around 35 years old. They’re all smart. All collegial. All hard-working. They all have positive attitudes. They’re all good communicators.

So what will determine who gets the next promotion, and the one after that? Which of them, when the time comes, will get that corner office?

In other words, what does it take to lead an organization — whether it’s a sports team, a nonprofit, a start-up or a multinational corporation? What are the X factors?

Interviews I conducted with more than 70 chief executives and other leaders for Corner Office in The New York Times point to five essentials for success — qualities that most of those C.E.O.’s share and look for in people they hire.

The good news: these traits are not genetic. It’s not as if you have to be tall or left-handed. These qualities are developed through attitude, habit and discipline — factors that are within your control. They will make you stand out. They will make you a better employee, manager and leader. They will lift the trajectory of your career and speed your progress.

These aren’t theories. They come from decades of collective experience of top executives who have learned firsthand what it takes to succeed. From the corner office, they can watch others attempt a similar climb and notice the qualities that set people apart. These C.E.O.’s offered myriad lessons and insights on the art of managing and leading, but they all shared five qualities: Passionate curiosity. Battle-hardened confidence. Team smarts. A simple mind-set. Fearlessness.

What follows are excerpts from chapters on each of them.

Passionate Curiosity

Many successful chief executives are passionately curious people. It is a side of them rarely seen in the media and in investor meetings, and there is a reason for that. In business, C.E.O.’s are supposed to project confidence and breezy authority as they take an audience through their projections of steady growth. Certainty is the game face they wear. They’ve cracked the code.

But get them away from these familiar scripts, and a different side emerges. They share stories about failures and doubts and mistakes. They ask big-picture questions. They wonder why things work the way they do and whether those things can be improved upon. They want to know people’s stories, and what they do.

It’s this relentless questioning that leads entrepreneurs to spot new opportunities and helps managers understand the people who work for them, and how to get them to work together effectively. It is no coincidence that more than one executive uttered the same phrase when describing what, ultimately, is the C.E.O.’s job: “I am a student of human nature.”

The C.E.O.’s are not necessarily the smartest people in the room, but they are the best students — the letters could just as easily stand for “chief education officer.”

“You learn from everybody,” said Alan R. Mulally, the chief executive of the Ford Motor Company. “I’ve always just wanted to learn everything, to understand anybody that I was around — why they thought what they did, why they did what they did, what worked for them, what didn’t work.”

Why “passionate curiosity”? The phrase is more than the sum of its parts, which individually fall short in capturing the quality that sets these C.E.O.’s apart. There are plenty of people who are passionate, but many of their passions are focused on just one area. There are a lot of curious people in the world, but they can also be wallflowers.

But “passionate curiosity” — a phrase used by Nell Minow, the co-founder of the Corporate Library — better captures the infectious sense of fascination that some people have with everything around them.

Passionate curiosity, Ms. Minow said, “is indispensable, no matter what the job is. You want somebody who is just alert and very awake and engaged with the world and wanting to know more.”

Though chief executives are paid to have answers, their greatest contributions to their organizations may be asking the right questions. They recognize that they can’t have the answer to everything, but they can push their company in new directions and marshal the collective energy of their employees by asking the right questions.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/business/17excerpt.html?partner=rss&emc=rss