I used to know someone who went in-house for Nike. The person didn't last a long time as a non-athlete, because as soon as something was up for debate, they were simply asked 'And what record have you set'.
You might argue the business should be more welcoming, I reckon that commitment to actual sports is what set them apart (maybe today not so much). Nike did well because it got to the real emotional truth behind athletes.
It's shouldn't be hard, but most brands live in a fantasy world.
Most forget why they existed in the first place.
I was also close to a cycling brand, I knew a lot of the people there, both in leadership and on the ground.
It was flying because it was run by cycling nuts who who did all they could to get more people into the sport they loved.
The brand brought to life the human stories and rich history, while demystifying the complexity lots of elitists created to keep the plebs out.
While they made cycling clothes that actually looked and felt good - and all sorts of experiences that nodded to fashion and the culture surrounding cycling.
Coffee, cafes, journalism, travel -a rich tapestry of ways to enjoy the sport they loved.
Now it's lost it's way because those people have gone and the hipsters who took over think its actually a fashion brand, not a cycling brand.
Now it wasn't for everyone and let's be honest, no brands should be, but people that bought it tended to love it.
On a purely functional level, before it came along most cycling gear was truly horrible. It was badly fitting, itchy, sweaty and looked dreadful.
It was quite a thing to have cycling clothes that were a joy to wear (yes I am fully aware that NO ONE truly looks good in cycling gear, especially off the bike, but let's go with it).
On a brand level, while the cost made it exclusive, the overall approach made it very inclusive. A previously impenetrable sport, suddenly became a lot easier to understand, the rich stories behind it were brought to life, you didn't have to join a local club to feel like you belonged.
Most importantly, it was run by people who adored cycling. The business shut on Wednesday afternoons so staff could do a long group ride, they built up a community of friends to support and build, from bike fitter (people who adjust the bike so it's comfy to ride and won't injure you for life) to journalists, cafes, collaborations with Paul Smith (cycling nutcase) and eventually even cycling teams. They even helped launch a beautifully written magazine that was a joy to read.
All that love for cycling meant that while they made mistakes, the actual gear was amazing made by people who understood and loved the sport.
Now many of the folks who run it don't own a bike.
It's led by people who love fashion and it's lost it's way. The world you enter has gone from authentic and welcoming, to try-hard and elite. They'll killed some of the best loved cycling specific gear and replaced it with bad gym clothes. The actual fit is all over the place and some products just fall apart.
No one talks about the brand much anymore and when they do, it's about how they 'used to be good'.
Every brand needs a clear idea of who they are and who they are for.
Of course, people move on and founders want to enjoy the results of the work they have put in.
But brands are really just stories.
They add to the story buyers tell themselves.
But the people who own it need to keep their own story grounded in truth, not fiction.
And they change it at their peril.
Recent Comments