Nike Brand Equity

Case 6 Nike Celess Valk MKTG 4082 10/29/12 To answer capitulum one its important to not that Nike has holdd a very powerful image in the minds of consumers in America. Nike wanted consumers to perk it as an innovative notice that produces precede of the line performance gear that was associated with very powerful and important athletes (mostly males). Their visibleness users are represented as famous athletes much(prenominal) as Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods. The athletes reflected the strike off personalities such as competitive, winners, tough, and better than the rest.This also is a way for Nike to obtain credibility and quality. With the Air Jordan line, Nike sold over $ nose candy million shoes in the first year (129). Nikes lineages of imperfection equity hit all the way to the top of the CBBE benefit for American consumers. Within the first two years alone Nike had 50% of the commercialize share for athletic shoes. Salience is huge with the Nike logo. About 97% o f Americans were adequate to(p) to recognize the Nike logo in 2000 (139). Imagery and performance were the main points that Nike distressed with its mark when it advertised itself.Nike stresses its performance as a main primordial point. Nike has been able to fulfill individual call for or judgments such as self-respect and self-confidence (which you obtain when wearing shoes that the athletes wear). It fulfills needs that are much difficult to articulate such as the social needs for power and belonging. Resonance is obtained through the athletic communities Nike has built such as the relationships that were built with the athletes on Nikes behalf as soundly as the consumers behalf with the Air Jordan line.It doesnt surprise me that atomic number 63ans had a lack of respect for the Nike brand as stated in question two. To start off, Europe didnt have the same view on certain sports as strong as the fact that their athlete idols were different. Second, athletic shoe specialty stores didnt even exist there. Third, their enculturation is different than the American culture so naturally there are going to be some shipway in which Nike is unappealing to their cultural determine. Nike was seen as an warring, arrogant, and intimidating brand receivable to its strong denote and the message of power and performance.This advertising technique and these values worked in America, but not so well in Europe. Europeans were more traditional and less competitive. Some TV channels even refused to oxygenize the Nike vs. Evil advertisements. To change these views Nike obdurate to create an image in the consumers minds to be seen as culturally, personally, and geographically relevant to the consumers while keeping their logo and brand name constant. Nike gained 90% control of the brand distribution in Europe to make sure that happened (133).Nike became more involved as a donor of sports leagues such as soccer and emphasizes its apparel in general. In 1997, Nike d ecided to also adjust its global branding strategy to tune worst violent advertising techniques and resonated with regional interests. They used the two best-known athletes to create a sense of awareness and attachment to the brand globally. They even mouth down the use of the swoosh logo and created product lines that were more community of interests building and less aggressive to consumers.In Asia, more specifically, Nike used ads with athletes that were local to their culture and stayed away from the aggressive advertising they once used that gave them irreverence in Europe. They learned their lesson and knew they needed to start out with a soft advertising approach and increase their brand awareness. To answer Question three, I bequeath emphasize a few main points. Nike is known for innovative products globally with their shoe lines, Shox or AirJordan, but their image tarnished slightly from the working situations they be in Asia.The imagery and feelings surrounding Nike no w for Americans may be weaker repayable to this. As Americans, we believe strongly in freedom, equality, and the privilege to have those. Nike fundamentally took advantage of that and tempered their employees in Asia with very little freedom and treated them unfairly. Even though the sweatshops scandal weakened the image of Nike in the minds of Americans, Nike is until now are seen as a powerful brand that emphasizes performance, power, and gives its consumers a quite a little to be the best. The sweatshops weakened their image in the minds of Americans.As I stated before, aggressive advertisements work for Americans because we are a society that is so strongly habituated to our sports, individualism, performance, and are competitive in general. However, as we saw in question 2 that approach doesnt work well globally. In bless to appeal to the world, Nike needed to make some local adjustments as well as global changes for its brand. Europes brand equity sources straw mainly fr om its attachments to the soccer community and apparel line. In 1999 the companys soccer orders from Europe grew over 100% from the previous year (140).Nike has strong performance, salience, and even resonance in this respect. Although competition, Reebok, may have better imagery, Nike has worked fleshy to improve theirs in European minds and must be doing something right with poesy that impressive. In Asia, Nike has strong brand equity from its image, performance, and judgments. They didnt create such strong advertising techniques since they learned their lesson in Europe. This gave Asians a chance to see Nike in a positive light from the start, which makes their brand equity source from judgments and feelings better off the bat as compared to Europes brand equity sources.Asian sales led the stock price to more than $70/share for the first time ever. Even after the collapsed economy they were orderliness Nike goods and Nike kept with them. From this one could infer they are loya l customers, which reaches the higher levels of the CBBE pyramid (feelings and resonance). References Keller, Kevin Lane. Nike Building a Global Brand. Best Practice Cases in brand Lessons from the Worlds Strongest Brands. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson Education/Prentice Hall, 2003. 125-47. Print.