Here’s an interesting marketing debate: Between Nike vs. McDonald’s, who actually does a better job of marketing?
Although they are in completely different businesses which utilize different strategies and elements of the marketing mix, they are both known as being “marketing-driven,” if for no other reason than they each spend hundreds of millions of dollars around the world to “move the needle” on consumer perception and marketing share.
It’s instinctive to answer that Nike is does a better job of marketing, because we tend to equate marketing with advertising and their advertising is known to be creative and would appear to be effective in making people feel good about owning the shoes and clothing.
But Nike’s products themselves are good to high quality–so the products are actually a positive part of the marketing mix–a great sales tool, if you will.
Contrast this with McDonald’s products: While most people agree they taste good, the menu choices are constantly and increasingly under fire for not being healthy–or even unhealthy. This negative theme is so powerful that it has long been part of the dialogue in pop culture and politics–think late night comedians and New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda servings of more than 16 ounces.
Yet McDonald’s continues to grow. Why? Partly because anything fried tastes good. But beyond that, they use an ultra-sophisticated mix of non-product marketing elements (remember the 4 P’s?), including consistent (if not high) quality food, cheap prices, broad distribution and a constant stream of promotions to enhance it’s number one position in fast food.
So the question of whether Nike or McDonald’s does a better marketing has to with your definition of marketing: If it includes the product itself (plus of course the wonderful advertising), the answer is Nike.
But if you look at innovative and consistent execution that is forced to overcome an iffy product, I’d have to say McDonald’s. They certainly have the bigger marketing challenge.
