Techdirt. Stories about "nike"

Techdirt. Stories about "nike" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories about "nike"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:00:00 PDT DailyDirt: Studying Advertising As A Science...? Michael Ho http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/18433715644/dailydirt-studying-advertising-as-science.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110823/18433715644/dailydirt-studying-advertising-as-science.shtml

Sex sells. Here's a project that aims to prove it by advertising to monkeys. Photoshopping the ideal female monkey form must be a pretty weird job... [url]

There's some research that suggests that the special status of fine art could be lost if used in advertising carelessly. Yah, like when I first heard The Beatles' Revolution in a Nike commercial. [url]

Authenticity is important -- even to a Nazi. Psychologist Paul Bloom talks about how we're all essentialists at TED and mentions how kids could think veggies are tastier if they're included in a Happy Meal. [url]

To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> urls-we-dig-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110823/18433715644 Wed, 8 Jun 2011 01:09:00 PDT Becoming A Platform: How RunKeeper Continues To Keep Competitors At Bay Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/15215114595/becoming-platform-how-runkeeper-continues-to-keep-competitors-bay.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/15215114595/becoming-platform-how-runkeeper-continues-to-keep-competitors-bay.shtml how it successfully outran Nike and other big sporting goods companies. This was in response to the claim we hear all the time that a small company "can't compete" with some big company that can just "copy the idea and throw lots of money at it." The reality is a lot more complex. Can big companies sometimes do that? Absolutely. Does it happen that often? No. The reasons aren't too difficult to understand. If the innovation is truly disruptive, the big companies are often at a steep disadvantage: (1) They don't fully understand the innovation or really why consumers/users want it. Instead, they understand the superficial reasons and that's all they copy. (2) They are held back by legacy issues, and their legacy business model, which might be undercut by the true innovation. That was definitely the case with RunKeeper, which could be brand-agnostic in its solution, whereas players like Nike and Adidas were somewhat held back.

Since then, I've been following the situation with RunKeeper pretty closely (and got to meet CEO Jason Jacobs a few months ago, where we got to totally geek out on innovation and business models). Anyway, the company has now taken things to the next level, distancing itself even further from the competition. Over the past few years, the company has added ways for other data and systems to hook into RunKeeper, which has become a wider "fitness" app rather than just a running app. One of the things that the company developed during this time was a "Health Graph" that pulled a lot of this info together in a very useful manner:

Imagine a system that can identify correlations between a user’s eating habits, workout schedule, social interactions and more, to deliver an ecosystem of health and fitness apps, websites, and sensor devices that really work, based on a user’s own historical health and fitness data. The Health Graph has the potential to completely alter the health and fitness landscape.

But where things get really interesting is that RunKeeper has now opened up the Health Graph API so that others can not just tap into Health Graph but build on it as well, basically letting all sorts of other services and devices build on this pretty cool and complete platform -- something which the other players in the space simply don't have:

What does this mean for device manufacturers and developers? They now have the opportunity to build an endless array of apps, that draw on the powerful data within the Health Graph. Health Graph developers also benefit from the social features on RunKeeper.com to gain exposure and drive sales. Social features, like our FitnessFeed and Facebook & Twitter sharing integrations, are a fundamental part of the RunKeeper.com experience; we’re opening up these forums to apps and devices that build on the Health Graph, to provide our 6MM+ community members with easy access to all the tools that integrate with RunKeeper.

I find this especially interesting considering our recent discussion on platform reliance, and how the big opportunities are in becoming your own platform. Think about this for a second: many people dismissed RunKeeper, early on, as a small app for tracking running info, and lots of people assumed naturally that once the "big players" got into the ring, RunKeeper would inevitably be crushed. But RunKeeper has continued to innovate and continued to focus on that core goal of making the overall "fitness" community better informed and better able to do things with their data, so that they're able to stay ahead of the big guys, even though we're talking about some of the biggest companies around, with tons of cash and the most recognized brands in the world.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> business-model-jujitsu http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110607/15215114595 Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:01:00 PST Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110118/12094312711/senator-wyden-calls-out-content-companies-wanting-to-censor-internet.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110118/12094312711/senator-wyden-calls-out-content-companies-wanting-to-censor-internet.shtml list of companies who support censoring the internet, but there were a couple of other interesting ones on the list that deserved a separate discussion. Greg Sandoval over at News.com did a nice job of reading between the lines to notice that Nike & Adidas were prominently featured in the letter and suggesting that this was targeted at Senator Ron Wyden, who was the only Senator who stood up and said that COICA was a bad idea, and blocked it from being rushed through last year. Wyden, of course, is from Oregon, and Nike is based in Portland and has tremendous influence in Oregon. Adidas also has a large operation in Oregon.

Sandoval also got a comment from Wyden's office, suggesting the Senator is still standing up for what's right, rather than bowing to political pressure:

"Senator Wyden has long worked with U.S. industry on combating the trafficking of counterfeit goods like fake shoes and apparel. But going after trade in real merchandise can be done in a variety of effective ways, like inspecting shipping containers at American ports of entry to identify and seize fake merchandise.

"Unfortunately, the content industry has piggybacked on the legitimate efforts of apparel designers to combat counterfeit goods and now threaten the integrity of the Internet as a means to combat intellectual property infringement. The Internet is too important to our economy and to advancing American values to be inappropriately regulated and censored under the guise of protecting IP, which is why Congress and the Administration should be as cautious as it is surgical when it aims its sights on the Internet."

Nicely said. Hopefully he sticks to it and doesn't cave in to the pressure.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> kudos http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110118/12094312711 Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:01:00 PST The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110118/12431012712/companies-who-support-censoring-internet.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110118/12431012712/companies-who-support-censoring-internet.shtml to Attorney General Eric Holder and ICE boss John Morton today (with cc's to VP Joe Biden, Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano, IP Czar Victoria Espinel, Rep. Lamar Smith, Rep. John Conyers, Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Charles Grassley), supporting the continued seizure of domain names they don't like, as well as the new COICA censorship bill, despite the serious Constitutional questions raised about how such seizures violate due process and free speech principles. While many reporting on this letter refused to actually post a copy of the full letter, kudos to Greg Sandoval over at News.com for doing so (full text also included after the jump on this post).

The companies try to present a united front that censoring the internet is a good thing. It includes the usual suspects of Viacom and NBC Universal on the content side and Louis Vuitton and Tiffany on the counterfeiting side, but there are a few other interesting names: such as Monster Cable (never met an IP law it didn't want to abuse, apparently), the NBA, MLB and NFL (sports leagues unite in censorship!) as well as Voltage Pictures, famous for suing thousands of fans for downloading Hurt Locker. Activison, which has become increasingly aggressive on IP issues lately is on the list as well, of course. Anyway, here's the full list of companies that support censoring the internet, because they're too lazy to compete in the marketplace or innovate when that market changes:

Nike - Beaverton, OR
Achushnet - Fairhaven, MA
Curb Music Publishing - Nashville, TN
NBC Universal - New York, NY
Viacom - New York, NY
Callaway - Carlsbad, CA
Cleveland Golf - Huntington Beach, CA
Rosetta Stone - Arlington, VA
Activision - Santa Monica, CA
Adidas Group - Portland, OR
Xerox - Norwalk, CT
Hastings Entertainment, Inc. - Amarillo, TX
Fortune Brands - Deerfield, IL
Coty Inc. - New York, NY
EDGE Entertainment Distribution - Streetsboro, OH
Oakley, Inc. - Foothill Ranch, CA
PING - Phoenix, AZ
Louis Vuitton - New York, NY
D'Addario and Company - Farmingdale, NY
Monster Cable Products, Inc. - Brisbane, CA
Tiffany and Co. - New York, NY
Farouk Systems, Inc. - Houston, TX
Beam Global - Deerfield, IL
Chanel USA - New York, NY
True Religion Apparel, Inc. - Vernon, CA
Concord Music Group - Beverly Hills, CA
Village Roadshow Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
National Basketball Association - New York, NY
National Football League - New York, NY
The Collegiate Licensing Company/IMG College - Atlanta, GA
Anderson Merchandisers - Amarillo, TX
Trans World Entertainment Corporation - Albany, NY
Timberland - Stratham, NH
Major League Baseball - New York, NY
Lightening Entertainment/Mainline Releasing - Santa Monica, CA
Sierra Pictures - Beverly Hills, CA
Voltage Pictures LLC - Los Angeles, CA
Worldwide Film Entertainment LLC - Westchester, CA
Nu Image, Inc. - Los Angeles, CA
Burberry Limited - New York, NY
Big Machine Records - Nashville, TN
The Little Film Company - Studio City, CA
Columbia Sportswear Company - Portland, OR

These companies are clearly trying to protect their own business interests, but it seems reasonable to let them know that you don't appreciate them seeking to censor the internet. If you haven't been following this story, and want to understand the details, we've discussed why COICA is all about censoring websites without due process and in violation of the First Amendment. We've also discussed how the ongoing (pre-COICA) domain name seizures were riddled with serious errors that appear to violate the law as well, including seizing the domains of blogs regularly used and recognized within the music industry based on evidence involving songs sent by the record labels themselves.

And, of course, none of this is to say that violating copyright or trademark laws should be allowed. But we have a system to deal with such things: you file a lawsuit, you have an adversarial hearing in a courtroom (i.e., due process) and you let both sides present their case. COICA and these domain seizures look to avoid all of that. And that's a big, big problem. That these companies would support such censorship and leapfrogging over due process suggests that they're companies not worth doing business with.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> censorship-is-good-for-business http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110118/12431012712 Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:20:00 PST Nike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The Internet Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101216/03071712300/nike-sues-guy-who-ordered-single-pair-counterfeit-sneakers-over-internet.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101216/03071712300/nike-sues-guy-who-ordered-single-pair-counterfeit-sneakers-over-internet.shtml accidentally buy a counterfeit pair of shoes, Nike might sue you. Via Glyn Moody, we learn that Nike chose to sue a guy who ordered a single pair of trainers online, believing they were legitimate Nike shoes. The shoes were seized at the UK border as counterfeits. Nike could have gone after the actual counterfeiters. Or it could have (perhaps more questionably) gone after some other third parties, such as the retailers who sold the shoes. Instead, it chose option 3 and sued the buyers directly. Most of the suits were settled (or, apparently, ignored).

However, one customer, a Mr. E. Bateman, thought this was ridiculous, and fought it. He pointed out that he simply thought he was buying legitimate Nikes, and it seems rather ridiculous to then be sued for it. The judge noted that, under UK trademark law, the buyer's intent is absolutely meaningless:

"Whether or not the defendant believed the goods were authentic is irrelevant to the question of trade mark infringement. Whether the goods are infringing goods or counterfeit goods is an objective question. The Defendant's state of mind does not matter. Equally the Defendant's state of mind is irrelavant to the question of importation."

In other words, don't ever buy Nike shoes, or you might get sued.

Of course, all this makes you wonder: what the hell was Nike thinking? We've seen how suing customers backfired badly for the RIAA and others, but this goes even beyond that. Here's a case where a guy appeared to believe he had just bought legitimate shoes, and Nike's response is to sue him, take him to court, and then win its lawsuit against him. The judge did point out that he "questioned whether the sledge hammer of these proceedings is necessary in order to crack this nut of this magnitude," and even then Nike pushed forward, claiming that the companies has "no realistic alternative to enforcing their rights this way."

Um. Sure they do: the alternative is not suing their customer. That said, at least the judge did not make Mr. Bateman pay any fine or award to Nike (even though Nike did ask for money), but rather, he has to promise not to infringe in the future, allow the shoes (still held by UK customs) to be destroyed and provide the details of where he bought the shoes. Of course, the only way he can make sure not to infringe in such a manner again is to never buy Nike shoes again, since he has no way of knowing beforehand if they're infringing or not. Nice work Nike.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> nike-picks-up-the-RIAA-strategy http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101216/03071712300 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:30:00 PDT Runkeeper's Ability To Outrun Nike & Adidas Shows How Big Companies Don't Always Copy & Win Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22341910973/runkeeper-s-ability-to-outrun-nike-adidas-shows-how-big-companies-don-t-always-copy-win.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22341910973/runkeeper-s-ability-to-outrun-nike-adidas-shows-how-big-companies-don-t-always-copy-win.shtml Netflix survived competition from Blockbuster, Amazon and Wal-Mart, but some people felt even that wasn't a good example, because by the time those three players got into the market, Netflix really did have a huge head start (which is something of an exaggeration anyway).

However, here's yet another fascinating example, sent over by my friend Tom, concerning the iPhone/Android app RunKeeper, and how it's successfully fended off competition from a bunch of different giant sporting gear companies, including Nike. Now, it's worth pointing out that RunKeeper (the little startup) initially got its idea for an iPhone app that tracks your exercise routine via a sensor, and then integrates that data into a web service, from Nike's famous Nike+ attachment for the iPod. Rather than using a shoe sensor, the guy who started RunKeeper decided to build it ontop of the iPhone's GPS, and make it so that it wasn't shoe specific, as Nike's was (though, to be fair, I know plenty of people who used Nike+ devices on non-Nike shoes).

RunKeeper definitely picked up a following among iPhone users. However, a year after it came out, Nike not only came out with their own version of Nike+ for the iPhone and iPod Touch... but it had done a deal with Apple to come pre-installed on every one of those Apple devices. A bunch of people predicted that Nike was going to "kill" RunKeeper this way, and all the folks who always insist that big companies will just come in and kill any innovative startup by copying them, would be proven wrong:

But quite the contrary, Nike's arrival did nothing but help RunKeeper. Nike poured their huge marketing budget into educating people on why to run with their phone, and as a result, RunKeeper's numbers more than doubled. My blog post from this time period is here.

And flourish RunKeeper did. We gained more than 2 million iPhone users, we were named by TIME Magazine as a top 10 iPhone app of 2009, and this big, passionate, global community of runners rallied around the RunKeeper system on the social web, and at www.runkeeper.com. We also ported our solution to Android (where we are currently a featured app), enabled manual map creation on the web, and integrated with a wi-fi scale, so users could send their weight data to www.runkeeper.com as well.

Along the way, other footwear companies like New Balance tried to get in the game with the 'NB TotalFit' app, but didn't make a dent (white labeled from our 'big scary' competitor). Then, Nike's arm got twisted even further when Adidas came out with their MiCoach system in August 2010, which is a GPS-based system. Here was another running shoe company jumping into the mix with a reasonable attempt, this one without tethering users to a specific pair of shoes. And Adidas came in with full guns blazing, running TV ads, sponsoring major races/events that featured MiCoach prominently, and investing heavily in trying to unseat RunKeeper as the go-to smartphone fitness tracking platform. So, one month in, what are the results so far? As of today, Adidas is ranked #18 in iPhone health/fitness and RunKeeper is ranked #14. Not bad for this little startup from Boston with zero marketing budget . In fact, MiCoach was #61 until last week, when Walt Mossberg's column gave them a big (and arguably misinformed) plug in the WSJ.

The point of the blog post was to discuss the fact that Nike was again copying RunKeeper, and going from a shoe-based sensor to a GPS application, but RunKeeper notes that it's not that worried. Why? Because it recognizes some key and important differences:

All of you big guys jumping in with major marketing budgets, you are doing this as a brand play. We are not. You are doing this to try to ultimately sell more people your footwear/apparel. We are not. You are big and slow moving. We are not.

Fascinating stuff. In Oded Shenkar's recent book, Copycats, there are many examples of this kind of thing. It talks about the importance of copying, but also how many companies really aren't able to copy effectively. In many cases, it's because of very different cost structures and incentives. In this case, Nike is focused on selling more apparel and the Nike offering has to work towards that end, while RunKeeper can focus on other features. Could Nike successfully overtake RunKeeper? Absolutely. But a lot of it depends on execution, and there's certainly no guarantee. As for the others who entered the market, in at least some cases, it looks like they engaged in cargo cult copying, where they copied the superficial aspects of what they saw, but didn't truly understand the market.

And, really, this is what competition is good for. Having more players in the market try different things is good for everyone. Not only does it force everyone to keep adjusting, it also pushes them all to keep experimenting with ways to better serve customers and to leapfrog over one another. Each one of these solutions may appear similar on the surface, but there are differences, as each company tries to tweak an idea to see what works. RunKeeper's initial tweak on the Nike+ appears to have worked, but so far none of the "tweaks" on RunKeeper's success have worked all that well. But, as those other (much larger) firms continue to tweak and tweak again, it's also pushing RunKeeper to keep improving its app. That's good for everyone.

What we're seeing is, once again, plain old imitation by itself doesn't appear to work very well, but imitation, plus some element of innovation to make it better does wonders. And yet, so many people don't seem to recognize this and simply assume that the "big guys" will automatically copy and kill any new startup.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> run,-baby,-run http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100912/22341910973 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:40:00 PDT Apple Trying To Patent Not Letting You Use Your Nike+iPod With Non-Nike Shoes Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080914/2249062264.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080914/2249062264.shtml trying to patent those ways. It's got a patent application in for smart garments which would create basically a DRM for devices -- forceably pairing a device like the Nike+iPod sensor to a specific shoe.

This seems odd for a whole variety of reasons. First, it seems positively silly for Apple to do this, as it severely limits the market for the devices, and lessens the value of the iPod. You can see why Nike might ask for it, but it's hard to see why Apple would implement it. Second, however, is that this seems highly questionable as a patent. I mean why would you patent something that makes your product less desirable? Would Apple actually sue someone else (say, Microsoft) for doing the same thing? That would (oh no!) force Microsoft to make its product more useful and more valuable. Finally, as a patent, how is this not "obvious"? It seems like a bad idea to implement, but that doesn't make it non-obvious. If any engineer wanted to create such a system, it wouldn't take much thought at all. The whole thing seems rather pointless.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> this-raises-some-questions http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080914/2249062264