By Kate Torok, Account Manager
This is a case when I am of the opinion that Nike should not have followed their own “Just Do It” advice. Why this popular brand wants to connect itself with Michael Vick, who has a criminal record for committing heinous and senseless crimes, is beyond me - as a person and as a PR professional.
Vick’s agent came out on September 30 with the announcement that his client
re-signed with Nike. Then on October 1, Nike
put out a statement denying the reports saying: “Nike does not have a contractual relationship with Michael Vick. We have agreed to supply product to Michael Vick as we do a number of athletes who are not under contract with Nike.”
Here’s the thing. There are those who say, he did the crime, and served his time, let it be. There are animal-rights activists who want to see Vick sent away to an island full of other dog haters and no dogs. And there are people like me who simply say, the guy’s image is 100% tarnished – no matter what he does from this point on – and if I were a decision-maker at Nike, Vick would not be included on any type of let’s-make-a-deal lists – endorsement or no endorsement.
It’s safe to say that when the NFL let Vick back into the league, there was an intense flurry of activity in social media forums like Facebook and Twitter. There were groups started, polls created and disparaging comments made about the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell. I didn’t see many people supporting the decision, or many people happy about Vick’s return. I would have taken my cue from that, Nike.
Let’s look at another example. When the Michael Phelps bong photo surfaced earlier this year, his endorser, Kellogg’s, had some similar decisions to make. Do they keep him on their list, or do they end their relationship? Initially, they did what I thought was a fast decision, but probably the right thing in the end and
cut their ties with him. Their audience is made up largely of kids and moms, and so the message of supporting an athlete – who was idolized by many young people – who hit the pipe even once, was not a good message for Kellogg’s to be sending.
Interestingly, Kellogg’s did get some backlash for their actions, from those who supported Phelps and acknowledged that he was just a young guy who made a mistake. But in the end, I think they came across as a brand who stood behind their values.
Comparing the two situations is interesting to me simply based on the nature of the incidents involving both of these athletes. What Phelps did only hurt himself – both physically and emotionally. What Vick did hurt (and killed) helpless animals. The two incidents are on the opposite spectrum. And the two brands handled it on opposite spectrums.
We’ll see whether Nike will get any more reaction from their relationship with Vick. Whether they have an endorsement deal or are simply providing apparel – either way, they may find out they should have just left him off their brand team roster.
