Does it happen that steps to protect brand jump over the line?
Consider “Nike to 9-Year-Old: Change Your Shirt,” Wall Street Journal, August 2, 2014 A12 The son of the Florida State University football coach ran up to his dad after a major win and the moment was captured on TV. Celebration ensures, right? Wrong.
Apparently, Florida State has a deal with Nike whereby Nike supplies a bunch of money and free apparel to Florida State. All that apparel has the Nike marks on it. Not so the sweatshirt the coach’s son was wearing; it clearly displays the Under Armour logo. Nike actually raised this in an email to the coach.
Query: Wouldn’t it be unseemly for an uniform manufacturer to enter into a contract with a 9-year-old whereby he was paid to wear the manufacturer’s logo? Or a contract with his dad (or his dad’s employer) that required the kid to wear branded merchandise? Aren’t there child labor laws?
Is this information governance? I submit that for the Nike assistant director it was a career limiting move. Did his actions actually hurt the Nike brand?