Nike PR handles running community brushfire

On Sunday October 19th, Nike sponsored the "Nike Women's Marathon" in San Francisco.  Two packs set out: first an "elite" group of individuals, presumably wearing specially-provided Nike gear, and 20 minutes behind them, the rest of the pack that entered the race.

Although the elite group finished ahead of the pack (not hard when you have a 20 minute head start), a Chicago teacher named Arien O'Connell in the rear group actually had the fastest time.  Nike did not crown her the winner though.

A day later, the SF Chronicle published an editorial condemning Nike that started the pot boiling with criticism of Nike.

On Wednesday October 22nd, Nike posted a congratulatory note on their forums to the runners.  Anger had built up so much that 20 minutes later there was a complaint on the forums that Arien O'Connell was ignored as the true winner because she wasn't in the elite group, despite having the fastest time. 

Three hours later Nike put an announcement on the forums saying that they were declaring Arien O'Connell 'a winner' and giving her the same prizes as they gave the winner of the 'elite' group of runners.  They also announced there wouldn't be any more 'elite' runners in future Nike Women's Marathons.

On October 23rd a writer with the SF Chronicle wrote an editorial condemning Nike for declaring O'Connell 'a winner' and not 'the winner'.  Associated Press put out a story.  It appeared that by October 23rd the story was played out.  How can you tell?  For one, look at the Google searches for "nike women's marathon".

The searches spike on race day and though they don't fall off as gently as they should, they plunge back down to pre-race levels, indicating people aren't that interested in the topic.

You can also examine the bump in searches for the term "nike":


While lots of things will affect Nike's search traffic, the race itself appears to have spiked traffic on the 19th with a falling off after.  The uptick at the end is probably not a resurgence of this story but other news about Nike. 

What should you learn from Nike's actions? 

Acknowledge when you're wrong:
Nike gave O'Connell the status of winner and scrapped the program, ending speculation that this would happen again. 

All recent coverage incorporates Nike's response, which is mostly satisfactory to the audience.  Because Nike didn't feel like they could withdraw the title of winner from the Elite winner as well, they are still taking a little static for it but that appears to be waning.

Act quickly (a little more quickly than Nike):
While it seemed like Nike acted quickly, they actually took a long time.  The editorial that appeared the day after the race (the 20th) should have generated an immediate response declaring O'Connell the winner and cancelling all future "elite" runners.  Instead they appeared to have waited a few days.  (Or perhaps that's just how long it took to make the decision internally).

A quicker response would probably have muted the outcry snowball that Nike is now having to wait to slow down.

In a future article I'll probably work with Jason to examine the pace and rate of online conversations around this topic. 

Disclosure: Neither Nike, nor any it's competitors or industry trade associations, are clients of Virilion.