Nike vs. Under ArmourThe race for first place.

Brandon Halverson

Ted Gournelos

COM100 Intro To Communication

Topic: Social Media and Web Presence Impact on Advertising.

Focus: Performance Apparel

Case Study: An examination of Nike’s Web and Social Media Strategies as compared to Under Armour

LiteratureNike’s Primary appeals: Invests more in advertising than in manufacturing or

other physical assets (Carducci 2009, 43)

Narratives serve as a vessel for Nike to be a living entity (Grow 2008, 337)

Feminist movement to “Just do it” by empowering women (Grow 2008, 314)

Under Armour’s appeals: Word of Mouth advertising is a powerful proponent to

success. i.e. post-game interviews (Kraft and Lee 2009)

Quality of Materials means a lot to CEO Kevin Plank (Brewer 2009, 354)

Coded for: Number of Posts, Videos [Visually there], Images, Copy Only, Hashtags, Website link, @ uses, Followers, Following, Athlete, Female visible, Male visible, Twitter Presence [i.e. Nike Running, Under Armour Football].

Methodology:: Content AnalysisSample: 1 month of Tweets by each respective

brand’s official Twitter.

Textual Analysis conducted on both official web pages: Nike.com & Underarmour.com.

Methodology: Content AnalysisResults:

Textual AnalysisRevealed that: Nike utilized more celebrities and focused on female

empowerment. Title screen focused on exchange value.

Under Armour focused on females training to be more beautiful. Title screen focused on innovation.

DiscussionThrough a textual analysis of Nike and Under Armour’s official websites as well as conducting a content analysis of both companies Twitter accounts I conclude that:Nike has a firm association with female empowerment

Under Armour relies on its Word-of-Mouth Strategy

Nike has a broader social network presence, yet a less dense presence on its main outlet. Proving it is more personalized.

Under Armour relies on their relationship with their publics, densely populating their main social media outlet with images connecting to the use of their products.

Bibliography:• Addelman, Rebecca. 2007. "THAT'S NOT UNDERWEAR, PAL, IT'S UNDER ARMOUR." Maclean's 120, no. 43: MS-4-

MS-5. Academic Search Premier• Brewer, Mark. 2009. “Case 23: Uner Armour: working to stay on top of its game.” The management of strategy:

concepts and cases. Pp.349-358.• Carducci, Vincent. 2003. "The aura of the brand." Radical Society: Review of Culture & Politics 30, no. 3/4: 39-50.• Grow, Jean M. 2008. "The Gender of Branding: Early Nike Women's Advertising a Feminist Antenarrative."

Women's Studies in Communication 31, no. 3: 312-343.• Kraft, Patrick and Lee, Jason W. 2009. “Protecting the House of Under Armour.” Fitness information Technology

Inc. Vol.18 Issue 12. Web. http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/Protecting-house-Under-Armour/201712741.html• Lenhart, Amanda; Purcell, Kristen; Smith, Aaron and Zickuhr, Kathryn. 2010. “Social Media & Mobile Internet Use

among Teens and Young Adults. Millennials”. Pew Internet and American Life Project.• Singh, Suresh. 2013. “Under Armour’s Lawsuit against Nike: Worth Breaking a Sweat?” Journal of Business Case

Studies. Vol. 9 no. 6 429-432• Singley, C.J. 2002. "From Women’s Movement to Momentum: Where Are We Going, Where Have We Been, and

Do We Need Nikes to Get There?." Journal Of American & Comparative Cultures 25, no. 3/4: 455-467.• Weedon, Gavin. 2012. "I Will. Protect this House:" Under Armour, Corporate Nationalism and Post-9/11 Cultural

Politics." Sociology of Sport Journal 29, no. 3: 265-282.