THE JAMES WAY · 李铁军 / JAMES TJ LEE
中文全文
最近看到一个关于刘翔和耐克的故事。
故事说，刘翔退役十多年了，耐克每年还花200万美元“养着”他：没有KPI，不要求成绩，一年最多参加5场活动。
还有一个更戏剧化的情节：2008年北京奥运会刘翔退赛，当晚17个代言品牌跑了16个，只有耐克留下。
于是，一个让人痛快的结论出现了：别人只看眼前，耐克看到了长期。
这个故事很有传播力。但在谈长期主义之前，得先把事实说清楚。
“17个品牌一夜之间走了16个”，并没有可靠证据。相反，2008年的《经济参考报》报道记录了可口可乐、奥康等品牌继续合作或支持刘翔的表态。公开支持他的，不止耐克。[1]
至于“每年200万美元、没有KPI、最多参加5场活动”，我也没有找到耐克官方或可信一手资料能够证实。这些具体金额和合同条款，不宜当作事实引用。
但有意思的地方恰恰在这里：
把最戏剧化的数字拿掉，真正的故事反而更值得研究。
01｜耐克做对的，不只是继续支持刘翔
2008年8月18日，北京奥运会男子110米栏预赛。
很多中国人都在等刘翔。
四年前的雅典，他拿下奥运冠军。2006年洛桑，他又跑出12秒88，打破世界纪录。[2]
对于许多人来说，刘翔带来的不只是一枚金牌。他让一个原本显得遥远的可能性，变成了眼前的事实：一个亚洲人，也可以站在世界短跨项目的最顶端。
所以，北京奥运会上，人们等待的已经不只是一场比赛。
人们在等那个关于“中国人可以”的故事，再次发生。
结果，刘翔因伤退出。
那一刻，有心疼和理解，也有失望、质疑，甚至谩骂。对品牌来说，原本围绕夺冠展开的传播，突然遇到了一个难题：接下来，该怎么讲述这个人？
耐克给出的，是那句后来被反复提起的广告语：
爱运动，即使它伤了你的心。
耐克后来的官方回顾，也把这句话列入与刘翔相关的代表性品牌表达。[3]
注意这句话。它没有把重心放在解释伤情，也没有许诺下一次胜利。它把讨论带回了一个更根本的问题：
如果我们只在运动员赢的时候爱他，那我们爱的究竟是运动，还是胜利？
在我看来，耐克这次表达的力量，就在于它让人看到：一个运动员的意义，不会随着一场比赛的缺席而消失。
02｜有些合作买来曝光，有些合作写进历史
如果只把刘翔看作一块广告媒体，伤病带来的确实是不确定性：比赛机会减少，成绩难以预测，原有的传播计划需要调整。
从短期投入产出的角度看，这些都是真实的问题。
但耐克后来做的一件事，提供了另一种理解这段合作的方式。
2014年11月11日，上海。
距离北京退赛已经六年，距离伦敦奥运会再次受伤也已经两年。耐克大中华区总部的一栋会议大楼正式启用，名字叫：刘翔中心。
刘翔本人和时任耐克品牌全球总裁特雷弗·爱德华兹共同为大楼揭幕。这一细节，可以在耐克当年的官方资料中查到。[4]
更打动我的是，楼内的一些会议室，还以刘翔取得重要突破的城市和年份命名：“2002釜山”“2004雅典”“2006洛桑”。[4]
这些名字，不是一次广告投放结束后就会撤下的文案。它们成为员工每天工作、开会时会遇见的记忆。
这并不能让我们知道耐克内部每一笔账是怎么算的。但至少，它表明这段关系已经超出了当季广告的范畴。
刘翔不只是“今年还能带来多少曝光的人”，也是一个被写进品牌空间与文化的人。
曝光让一个人被看见，记忆让一个人与品牌建立更长久的联系。
03｜流量会退潮，记忆可以留下
2015年4月7日，刘翔正式宣布退役。
耐克以“平凡也能飞翔”为主题向他致敬，并推出了一支名为《12秒88》的短片。[5]
这时候再回头看刘翔，问题已经变了。
已经不是：刘翔还能不能再跑一次12秒88？
而是：12秒88这件事，还会不会被记住？
2004年的奥运冠军、2006年的世界纪录、2007年的世锦赛冠军，都已经发生，不需要靠下一场胜利来重新证明。[2]
一个人当下的曝光，和他留在人们心里的位置，是两件不同的事。
一次热门内容可以得到很多关注，也可能很快被新的热点覆盖。但一个真正改变过一代人认知的人，即使很久不出现，再被提起时，仍能唤醒共同的记忆。
我把它理解为 Attention 与 Memory：注意力与记忆。
注意力可以通过投放获得。记忆却需要一个值得留下的故事，以及长期一致的讲述。
当然，历史也需要被理解、被传递。被记住，并不自动等于持续产生商业回报。
但对一个品牌来说，能够进入人们的人生记忆，已经是一种比短暂曝光更难建立的联系。
04｜报表之外，还需要一种判断
这些年，我们太习惯用数字评价一切。
粉丝、播放量、GMV、转化率、ROI。它们当然重要，经营不能只靠情怀。
但这些数字，并不能替我们完成所有判断。
报表擅长记录已经发生的结果。至于一个人、一种表达、一段关系，在未来会产生什么意义，往往需要在结果出现之前作出选择。
这让我想到一个词：Conviction。
它是信念，也是经过思考后愿意承担后果的判断。
2008年的刘翔，就是一个很好的观察窗口。当舆论承受着失望和争议时，一个品牌仍然需要回答：我们看重的，到底是什么？
是下一枚金牌，还是这个人已经代表、并且仍然能够传递的运动精神？
所以，我越来越喜欢这句话：
Conviction before consensus.
在共识形成之前，作出自己的判断。
它不是要求我们逢共识必反。不随大流，本身并不能证明你是对的。
真正有分量的判断，既能说清自己为什么相信，也愿意在证据变化时修正。
05｜看见报表还没有记录的东西
这也是投资、创业和品牌经营里很难的一件事。
我们总在寻找被低估的价值。但“暂时不被看好”和“真的被低估”，并不是一回事。
有人低估了它，也可能是我们高估了它。判断的工作，就是把这两种情况分清楚。
所以，除了问“大家觉得它值多少钱”，还应该继续问：
我看见了什么，是当前的评价还没有充分反映的？
放回刘翔的故事里，这个问题就变得具体了。
如果只看下一场比赛，伤病让未来充满不确定性。但如果把时间尺度拉长，你看到的还包括另一些已经确定的东西：他赢得过什么，突破过什么，又曾经让多少人重新理解“可能”。
一次退赛会改变他的赛程，却不会抹去这些经历。
在我看来，优秀的经营者往往有一种能力：既看当下的经营结果，也能识别那些尚未被短期指标充分记录的价值。
比如信任，比如共同记忆，比如品牌在低谷时是否仍然言行一致。
它们很难用一个季度准确计量，却会影响人们在更长时间里如何理解你。
06｜长期主义，先从改变问题开始
很多人把长期主义理解成坚持、忍耐、熬时间。
我越来越觉得，它首先是一种选择时间尺度的能力。
别人看三个月，你愿不愿意再看三年？别人关注下一次输赢，你能不能同时看见十年后仍然重要的东西？
当然，看得远不意味着可以忽略眼前的成本。一个长期判断，也需要持续检验，需要有能力走到那个未来。
但时间尺度一变，有些问题的答案确实会不同。
“刘翔下一场比赛还能不能赢？”和“二十年以后，人们还会不会记得刘翔？”衡量的就不是同一种价值。
所以，今天再总结耐克与刘翔这个案例，我不愿再用“花200万美元养一个退役运动员，最后赚麻了”这样的故事。
金额未经证实，收益也不能凭想象下结论。
我更愿意把它理解成：
与其只问刘翔还值多少钱，不如再问：他会被记住多久。
这不是耐克公开披露的算账公式，而是这个案例给我的启发。
下次评估一项合作、一段投入或一个尚未见效的项目时，我想提醒自己多问三句：
第一，眼前的下滑，改变了它的根本价值，还是只改变了短期表现？
第二，三年、十年以后，今天的投入可能留下些什么？
第三，如果新证据说明我错了，我会在什么情况下调整判断？
带着这些问题谈长期，才不容易把信念变成固执，把等待变成自我安慰。
今天的商业世界，对即时回报有着强烈的期待。
每一笔预算要有ROI，每一个内容要有流量，每一个项目都想尽快证明自己。
也正因为如此，愿意认真辨认长期价值的人，才显得难得。
有些重要的东西，今天的报表还无法充分定价：一个人的经历，一段积累下来的信任，一种在低谷中仍然成立的信念。
它们不会因为暂时缺少数字，就不存在。
当我们习惯性地问“它今天值多少钱”，也许值得再问一句：
它十年以后，还会不会有人记得？
如果会，就值得多花一点时间，弄清楚为什么。
The James Way
我越来越相信，人生和商业真正拉开差距的地方，往往不是我们掌握了多少信息，而是当我们看到同一组信息时，究竟作出了什么不同的判断。
Conviction before consensus.
在共识形成之前，找到你真正相信的东西。
资料与出处
[1] 《经济参考报》（中国新闻网转载），2008年8月20日：刘翔因伤退出比赛 代言品牌“受伤”不大。
[2] 世界田联，2015年4月7日：2004 Olympic 110m hurdles champion Liu Xiang retires。
[3] 耐克媒体中心：耐克全力推动跑步文化在中国生根发芽。
[4] 耐克媒体中心，2014年11月11日：耐克集团大中华区总部启用“刘翔中心”。
[5] 耐克媒体中心，2015年4月7日：平凡也能飞翔。
ENGLISH EDITION
Liu Xiang and Nike: Beyond Market Value, the Value of Being Remembered
By James TJ Lee · The James Way
I recently came across a story about Liu Xiang and Nike.
It claimed that, more than a decade after his retirement, Nike still pays him US$2 million a year: no performance targets, no competitive results required, and no more than five appearances annually.
There was an even more dramatic detail. When Liu withdrew from the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the story went, sixteen of his seventeen sponsors abandoned him that very night. Only Nike stayed.
The satisfying conclusion practically wrote itself: everyone else saw the short term; Nike saw the long term.
It is a compelling story. But before we talk about thinking long term, we need to get the facts straight.
There is no reliable evidence that sixteen of seventeen sponsors walked away overnight. In fact, a 2008 report in the Economic Information Daily recorded statements from Coca-Cola, Aokang and other companies supporting Liu or continuing their partnerships. Nike was not alone in publicly supporting him.[1]
Nor have I found an official Nike source or credible firsthand documentation confirming the US$2 million annual payment, the absence of performance targets, or the limit of five appearances. Those figures and contract terms should not be presented as established facts.
Yet this is where the story becomes more interesting.
Take away the most dramatic numbers, and what remains is worth studying even more closely.
01 | Nike did more than continue its support
August 18, 2008. The heats of the men's 110-metre hurdles at the Beijing Olympics.
Across China, people were waiting for Liu Xiang.
Four years earlier, he had won Olympic gold in Athens. In Lausanne in 2006, he had run 12.88 seconds and broken the world record.[2]
For many people, Liu represented more than a medal. He had turned a seemingly distant possibility into a visible fact: an Asian athlete could reach the very top of the world's sprint hurdles.
So Beijing was about more than a race. People were waiting to see that story of what a Chinese athlete could achieve happen again.
Instead, Liu withdrew through injury.
There was sympathy and understanding, but also disappointment, suspicion and abuse. For sponsors whose campaigns had been built around the prospect of victory, the question suddenly changed: how should they tell his story now?
Nike responded with a line that would be remembered long afterward:
Love sport, even when it breaks your heart.
This is my translation of “爱运动，即使它伤了你的心。” Nike later included the Chinese line in an official retrospective of its communications associated with Liu.[3]
Notice what the line does. It does not focus on explaining his injury. It makes no promise of another victory. It brings the conversation back to a more fundamental question:
If we love athletes only when they win, do we love sport—or victory?
To me, the strength of Nike's message was its recognition that an athlete's significance does not disappear because he misses a race.
02 | Some partnerships buy exposure. Others become part of history.
If you saw Liu only as an advertising channel, his injuries created real uncertainty. There were fewer opportunities to compete, results became harder to predict, and campaigns needed to change.
Those were legitimate concerns for anyone evaluating short-term costs and returns.
But something Nike did later offers another way to understand the partnership.
On November 11, 2014, in Shanghai, Nike inaugurated a conference building at its Greater China headquarters. Six years had passed since Beijing, and two since Liu was injured again at the London Olympics.
The building's name was the Liu Xiang Center.
Liu and Trevor Edwards, then President of the Nike Brand, attended its opening. Nike's official account documents the event.[4]
What moves me even more is that some of the meeting rooms were named after the cities and years of his breakthroughs: Busan 2002, Athens 2004 and Lausanne 2006.[4]
These were not advertising slogans scheduled to come down at the end of a campaign. They became memories that employees would encounter as they worked and met each day.
This does not tell us how Nike calculated every element of the relationship. But it does show that the partnership extended beyond a season's advertising.
Liu was more than someone who could deliver a certain amount of exposure that year. He had become part of the company's physical space and culture.
Exposure gets someone seen. Memory builds a more enduring connection between a person and a brand.
03 | Attention fades. Memory can remain.
On April 7, 2015, Liu formally announced his retirement.
Nike paid tribute with the theme “平凡也能飞翔”—roughly, “Even the ordinary can fly”—and released a short film titled 12.88.[5]
By then, the question had changed.
It was no longer whether Liu could run 12.88 seconds again.
It was: would people still remember those 12.88 seconds?
His Olympic title in 2004, world record in 2006 and world championship title in 2007 had already happened. They did not need another victory to make them real.[2]
Someone's current visibility and the place they occupy in people's lives are different things.
A piece of popular content may attract enormous attention, then quickly be displaced by the next story. But a person who changed what a generation believed possible can awaken a shared memory simply by being mentioned again, even after years out of sight.
I think of this as attention and memory.
Advertising can purchase attention. Memory requires a story worth keeping, and a consistent commitment to telling it.
Of course, history still needs to be understood and passed on. Being remembered does not automatically produce continuing commercial returns.
But for a brand, becoming part of people's life memories creates a connection that is much harder to build than a moment of visibility.
04 | Beyond the spreadsheet, we still need judgment
We have become accustomed to evaluating almost everything through numbers.
Followers, views, gross merchandise value, conversion rates, return on investment. They matter. Sentiment alone cannot sustain a business.
But numbers cannot make every judgment for us.
A report is good at recording results that have already happened. Deciding what a person, a message or a relationship might mean in the future often requires a choice before the results arrive.
That brings me to a word: conviction.
It is a belief, but also a considered judgment whose consequences you are prepared to accept.
Liu in 2008 offers a useful way to examine this. Amid public disappointment and controversy, a brand still had to answer: what exactly do we value?
The next gold medal? Or the sporting spirit this person already represented and could continue to convey?
This is why I keep returning to a phrase:
Conviction before consensus.
Form your own judgment before agreement becomes widespread.
That does not mean opposing every consensus. Refusing to follow the crowd is not, by itself, evidence that you are right.
A judgment with substance can explain why it believes—and is willing to change when the evidence changes.
05 | Seeing what the numbers have yet to capture
This is one of the difficult parts of investing, entrepreneurship and building a brand.
We are always looking for undervalued opportunities. But being out of favour and being undervalued are not the same thing.
Others may be underestimating something. Or we may be overestimating it. The work of judgment is to tell those possibilities apart.
So alongside “What does everyone think it is worth?”, we should ask:
What do I see that the current assessment has not fully accounted for?
In Liu's case, that question becomes concrete.
If you looked only at his next race, injury made the future deeply uncertain. If you widened the time frame, other things came into view that were already established: what he had won, which barriers he had broken, and how many people he had helped to rethink what was possible.
A withdrawal could change his racing calendar. It could not erase those experiences.
To me, strong business leaders can do two things at once: examine current operating results and recognise value that short-term measures have yet to capture fully.
Trust, for instance. Shared memory. Whether a brand's behaviour remains consistent with its words when things go wrong.
They are difficult to measure accurately within a quarter. But they shape how people understand you over a much longer period.
06 | Thinking long term starts with changing the question
Long-term thinking is often described as persistence, patience or the ability to wait things out.
Increasingly, I see it first as the ability to choose the right time horizon.
When others look three months ahead, are you willing to consider three years as well? When they focus on the next win or loss, can you also see what might still matter a decade from now?
Looking further ahead does not excuse ignoring today's costs. A long-term judgment needs continuing scrutiny, and the resources to make it to that future.
Still, changing the time frame can change the answer.
“Can Liu win his next race?” and “Will people still remember Liu twenty years from now?” do not measure the same kind of value.
So I would not sum up this case by saying that Nike spent US$2 million a year keeping a retired athlete on the books and made a fortune in return.
The payment is unverified. The returns cannot be inferred from an appealing story.
I would frame the lesson this way:
Alongside asking what Liu Xiang is worth today, ask how long he will be remembered.
That is my interpretation of the case, not a formula Nike has publicly disclosed.
The next time I assess a partnership, an investment of effort or a project that has yet to show results, I want to ask myself three more questions:
First: has the current decline changed its fundamental value, or only its short-term performance?
Second: what might today's commitment leave behind in three years—or ten?
Third: what new evidence would lead me to revise my judgment?
These questions help keep conviction from becoming stubbornness, and patience from becoming a way of reassuring ourselves without justification.
Business today places enormous weight on immediate returns.
Every budget needs a return on investment. Every piece of content needs an audience. Every project is expected to prove itself quickly.
That makes the willingness to examine long-term value carefully all the more unusual.
Some important things cannot yet be fully priced in today's reports: a person's experience, trust accumulated over time, a belief that still holds when things are difficult.
The absence of an immediate number does not mean they do not exist.
When we instinctively ask, “What is it worth today?”, perhaps we should add another question:
Will anyone still remember it ten years from now?
If the answer is yes, it is worth taking a little more time to understand why.
The James Way
I increasingly believe that what separates us in life and business is often not how much information we have, but the different judgments we make when we see the same information.
Conviction before consensus.
Before a consensus forms, find what you have reason to believe.
Sources
[1] Economic Information Daily, republished by China News Service, August 20, 2008: Liu Xiang's injury withdrawal had limited impact on the brands he endorsed (Chinese).
[2] World Athletics, April 7, 2015: 2004 Olympic 110m hurdles champion Liu Xiang retires.
[3] Nike China Media Center: Nike promotes the growth of running culture in China (Chinese).
[4] Nike China Media Center, November 11, 2014: Nike inaugurates the Liu Xiang Center at its Greater China headquarters (Chinese).
[5] Nike China Media Center, April 7, 2015: 平凡也能飞翔 (Chinese).
发表回复