Never confuse the customer.
Once, at an advertising agency meeting with our IHG client, one of the agencies admitted that their commercials for Holiday Inn and Holiday Inn Express were confusing. The stated benefits for both brands in the ads seemed too similar. When asked what the agency’s solution would be, the answer was, “More money behind the advertising.”
Of course.
Let’s put more dollars into running confusing ads so the brand can sow even more confusion.
Purposely generating confusion among customers is major mis-marketing. Please do not think that this observation of the obvious is just common sense. Common sense is less common than you think when it comes to brands.
Which is apparently a serious issue for athletic performance-wear brand, Under Armour.
This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s FREE newsletter. Join the world’s smartest marketers and subscribe here for actionable insights delivered directly to your inbox.
On May 12, 2026, Under Armour reported less than exciting results. Analysts observed that although there was some improvement due to the brand’s turnaround program, there appeared to be underlying issues with the turnaround results that were yet to be resolved. The brand’s outlook was somewhat dreary. Even the return of Under Armour’s founder as CEO, Kevin Plank, did not help carry the positive aspects of the revitalization progress.
On May 14, after 48 hours of consideration, as reported in The Wall Street Journal, investors decided that “… the company’s turnaround efforts showed little sign of paying off.”
“’North America revenue fell 7% in the most recent quarter, a number that “underscores that Under Armour is still losing a serious amount of market share,’ said Neil Saunders, a managing director of research firm GlobalData.
“’The coming year looks to be disappointing as well: The company’s forecast for sales and profit for fiscal 2027 fell short of Wall Street projections.
“’Putting all of this together, we don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to say there is a sustainable recovery at Under Armour,’ Saunders said.
“The stock was down about 16% in recent trading, erasing most of the company’s 2026 gains.”
Apparently, the remarks from CEO Plank did not engender confidence:
“Our fiscal 2026 performance reflects the ongoing intentional steps we’re taking to reset the business and restore the discipline required to operate as a best-in-class brand.”
As with most fiscal reporting, brand C-suites tend to blame environmental issues that are out of the brand’s control such as COVID-19, tariffs, the weather, logistics, war and so on. The business press supports these “acts of God” excuses by supporting the idea of a challenging “macro environment.” It is as if the MBAs in the C-suite are incapable of managing their ways through crises. Isn’t this what case studies are all about?
Rarely mentioned in reporting on troubled brands are the basic brand issues that are either ignored or deemed irrelevant. With Under Armour, there are issues such as moving towards a good-better-best strategy which is known to be death-wish marketing. Take Sears for example.
When a brand is in trouble and its customers are behaving untoward, raise prices behind a premium line. Make sure that customers know what they bought previously was “good” but now there are items that are not only better, but beyond better. Somehow there is a difference between good value and best value. When a brand is in trouble, the C-suite forgets that each product must be the best value in its segment regardless of price.
Under Armour let the deals eat away at the brand’s inherent premium performance aura. When the deals stopped, customers who were buying on deal, left the brand. There were also, apparently, frequent changes to the actual performance fabrics used “… frustrating loyal customers who are unable to find the same items once their gear wears out.”
More to the point. There are critical observations that Under Armour is a confusing brand.
Under Armour appears to be confusing the customer. Customers are unsure for whom the brand is appropriate. Is the brand for athletes? Is the brand for yoga aficionados? Is the brand supposed to satisfy the needs for athleisure living?
As one online retail report wrote, Under Armour has a brand identity crisis:
“Consumers are unsure if Under Armour is serious performance gear or a lifestyle brand. It (Under Armour) struggles to compete with Nike’s everyday appeal and Lululemon’s athleisure dominance.”
A different online retailing magazine put it this way:
“… the brand’s deeper problem (deeper than the macro environment) is one no trade policy can fix: Consumers are confused about who Under Armour is for.”
Consumers who are confused about who is the brand for and whether that brand is for them, is not the target audience a brand wishes to own. “OK, Wall Street, our true segment of customers is customers-who-are-confused-about-the-brand.“
It is a surprise that Under Armour should be in this quandary. The Under Armour brand foundation is clear.
The brand mission and the brand vision are all about athletes. Under Armour states that its goal is to “make athletes better.” To achieve this, Under Armour will make “Performance solutions you ever knew you needed and can’t imagine living without.”
Recognizing that we can all be athletes to some extent, then, the brand should be focusing on delivering that athletic performance enhancement to athletes whatever their game or proficiency. But, somehow, along the way, by providing all sorts of clothing and shoes, taking on not just footwear competitors like On and Hoka, but also clothing athleisure competitors such as Lululemon, Alo Yoga, Athletica, Vuoiri and Nike, Under Armour lost its way. Under Armour has seemingly become a ball of confusion.
The source of the customer confusion will remain.
Why?
Because although the brand has a mission and a vision, the brand does not have a brand promise. If your brand does not have a brand promise than the customer does not know what to expect.
A brand promise is a brief statement of the special contract that exists between a brand and its customers. A brand promise describes what the brand is intended to stand for in the mind of a specific group of customers or prospective customers. A brand promise states the expected relevant, differentiated brand experience. By consistently living up to and delivering the band promise, a brand will be pertinent, purposeful and particular. Brands are promises of relevant and differentiated experiences.
A brand promise is something that a brand continuously strives to achieve. A brand promise is a future-focused description articulating what the brand will do for its customers. The total brand experience (functional, emotional, and social benefits and rewards) is what defines the relevant distinctiveness of the brand. Defining the Brand Promise is an important strategic step for revitalizing a brand.
The role of the brand promise is multidimensional. First and foremost, it defines the brand. Second, a brand promise defines the parameters for all development, communications, innovation and renovation on behalf of the brand. The brand promise must be a motivating, relevant, differentiated description of the brand experience that you want the brand to deliver. Consistently living up to this promise is the way customers perceive the brand’s performance quality. The brand promise is also an internal force. All employees must know and understand the brand promise. Employees must be able to define it and deliver it, day after day, for every customer. Regardless of function, employees must know what they need to do to live up to the brand’s Promise to its customers.
Wall Street has a problem with brand building because Wall Street thinks brand building takes too long. Wall Street wants the payout now. Wall Street does not recognize that brands have short-term and long-term strategies, because without the short-term there is no long-term.
With our well-cited McDonald’s turnaround of 2003-2005, there was short-term turnaround of the brand that positively affected the brand’s share price. A critical piece of that turnaround was the development of a relevant and differentiated brand promise that modernized the heritage of the McDonald’s brand.
It is a mistake to believe the brand promise is a mere marketing construct. Brand purpose and brand promise are the first two P’s of a Plan to Win. The brand purpose tells you where the brand is headed. The brand promise tells you how you will bring the brand purpose to life for every customer, everywhere and any time.
Brand should strengthen competitive position, pricing power, and enterprise value. The Blake Project helps make that happen.
In Media Post, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData, added the following to his statements:
“The (Under Armour) brand problem may be the hardest thing to fix” He (Mr. Saunders) notes that even though this is Under Armour’s best quarterly performance in two years, the company continues to lose market share. “In our data for customer affinity, Under Armour has only shown very modest signs of improvement in the U.S.”
Actually, brand promise can be fixed with alacrity.
Generating a brand promise is not difficult. The challenge is embedding the brand promise into the veins of the organization. When everyone believes that their role is also a brand role, the brand wins. Having a brand promise must be built into any turnaround. Under Armour please take note.
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by Joan Kiddon, Partner, The Blake Project, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I
At The Blake Project, we help leaders turn brand into a disciplined driver of financial performance — strengthening pricing power, competitive position, and enterprise value. Email us to start a conversation about enduring profitable growth. For The EBITDA.
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project, a strategic brand consultancy focused on turning brand into pricing power, growth, and enterprise value.
