Nike vs. Adidas - almost an Olympic sport

Steve Richards of Econsultancy has compiled an excellent analysis on the Olympic social strategies surrounding the London 2012 Olympics.  

Needless to say, Nike has stolen a march on Adidas even though it is not an official sponsor - though it does have a roster of athletes and still sponsors certain national teams.  Also undeniable is the inevitability of the collision course - Paul Kelso of the London Telegraph describes relations between the two brands as "more frosty than usual".

"At the heart of the dispute is Adidas’s position as an official London 2012 sponsor, and the issue of athletes who are sponsored year-round by one brand appearing at the Games in kit sponsored by its rival" says Kelso.  


So, for example, in the US Nike is official kit supplier to the US Olympic team even though it features many Adidas, Reebok and Puma athletes.  While this might be a cause of conflict between brands, one can only imagine the confusion it creates with the fans!  It may get particularly messy when an athlete (sponsored by a particular brand) - has to wear a competing brand on the rostrum should s/he win a medal.

But back to the social standings of each brand.  According to Richards, Nike is outgunning Adidas on daily mentions by about 3 to 1.  Further, there is generally a more positive sentiment attached to Nike discussions than to Adidas ones.  What is most eyeopening however is that Nike conversation is crystallising around fewer more compelling themes while conversation on Adidas is fragmenting somewhat.  It seems the old maxim holds as much for Social Media as it does for anything else -  less is more

Conversations compared:  Nike

Conversations compared:  Adidas

Here's an example of Nike's #makeitcount guerrilla campaign:  it plays beautifully into Twitter's hashtag culture which probably accounts for much of its success.