4IpaUJbnm

Exhibit 1. Endorsement.
Endorsement is also effective at helping to reduce the influence of competing brands.
Archrival Reebok even goes as far as to directly address the success of Nike during the 1992
Olympic Games, stating that; “Whenever we look, a Sports Illustrated cover has a guy
wearing Nike cleats… We don't have the guys to get us that exposure, and it's damn
irritating” (Kiersh, 1992). This supports the connection between thoughtful celebrity
endorsement and increased brand awareness, due to a benefit called “free advertising”
achieved when an association between a celebrity and a brand are so strong that the idea of
the brand is evoked from simply seeing the celebrity without any mention of the brand
(Austad, 2004). During global sporting events, this effect is further strengthened by the
frequency with which athletes are covered in global media.
While athletic endorsement deals have their benefits, they can also expose a brand to
substantial risk. One concern in using athletes for endorsement purposes is the possibility of
injury or poor performance (See Exhibit 1). An example of this risk and the associated
negative outcome comes from the 1992 Olympics. In an attempt to compete with Nike,
Reebok created a then enormous USD 25 million marketing scheme featuring two prized
endorsers – decathletes Dan O’Brien and Dave Johnson (Shaw, 2012). Both men were
expected to contest for Olympic Gold. To Reebok’s chagrin, O’Brien did not even qualify for
the Olympics. To compound the setback, Johnson failed to win the Gold as had been widely
anticipated (Shaw, 2012). Just as brands benefit from the success of their endorsers when
their performance can be clearly segregated and identified, brands can suffer when an
endorser performs below expectations (Knittel & Stango, 2014). This concept is supported
by Reebok’s decrease in U.S market share contrasted while Nike’s continued to rise. (See
135