- USA Basketball Team Photo: Artistic Or Logo "Conspiracy"?
- Steve And Barry's, Bankruptcy And "Sampsonite” T-shirts
- Nike “Air McFlys” Finally Hit Store Shelves
- Vin Baker Joins List Of Athlete Home Foreclosures
- Sponsors: Should They Get Money Back If Athlete Is A No Show?
- Getting Schooled By Kobe
- AFL's Philadelphia Soul: Offering The Best Sports Promotion Ever?
- Zell's Dilemma: Sell Cubs Now Or After (Maybe) Winning It All?
- The Sports Biz Blog Jinx Hits NBA Draft
- Latest Tiger Apple Update: The Saga Continues
- Bowyer: Back to Monarchy in Land Rights?
- Parking Cash in European Telecoms
- Bargain Stocks: Nokia, Spectra, Incitex Pivot
- Sticker Shock: Fast Money's Inflation Special
- Our Favorite Inflation Trades
- Warren Buffett's Annual Stock Gift to Gates Foundation Worth $1.8B This Year
- That '70's Trade
- The Villain Of Our Story
- The Blame Game
- EU Opens Probe in BHP Billiton Bid for Rio Tinto
- Worse Car Sales Decline Expected in Western Europe
- Euro Banks Need to Raise $90-$140 Billion: Goldman
- BSkyB Mulls $4 Billion Bid for Spain's Digital Plus: FT
- On the Bright Side, Shopping Bargains Abound
- Euro Stocks Fall as Goldman Note Hits Banks
- Return of Asian Currency Crisis Is Unlikely: ADB
- European Shares Set to Open Flat as Holiday Shuts US
- Airbus to Sell Five A380s to Japan's ANA: Nikkei

![]() |
CNBC.com |
As of 9:30 am this morning however, that ad apparently has cost Under Armour $596 million. That's about $10 million a second, for those that are counting. Why? Because largely on news of this ad, the stock has plummeted from $42.08 at open yesterday to a $29.80 open today (last time it closed below 30 was March 15, 2006). So that's your $596 million loss, folks.
![]()
A Super Bowl ad must really have a negative connotation because there's not much more news on Under Armour to report that would cost this stock to go down so much. In fact, the company said yesterday that its 2007 will show net revenues up 40 percent to $605 million--better than its previous projection.
![]() |
Sure, Under Armour officials admitted that they'd be frontloading their advertising this year to help promote their cross trainer that comes out in May, but the ratio the company is spending on advertising (12-13 percent) will not change throughout the year and that type of spend is normal for this industry.
If you don't believe this company can make it in Europe, fine. If you don't believe this company's cross trainers will be successful, fine. But to penalize UA so much for a Super Bowl ad? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Questions? Comments?






