Alright, so I wanted to share a bit about what I saw, or thought I saw, regarding Under Armour and its, let’s call it, internal “politics.” This isn’t some big exposé, just my little observations from a brief time I got to see a tiny bit of how things worked, or didn’t always work, on the inside.
How I Got a Peek
It wasn’t like I was some big shot there, not at all. I landed a temporary contract, helping out in a department that always seemed to be swamped. You know the type, lots of urgent requests, last-minute changes. It was supposed to be just a few months, and I was mostly just trying to keep my head down and get the work done. But you can’t help but notice things when you’re in the thick of it, even if you’re just passing through.
What I started noticing was how decisions, especially around messaging and sometimes even product focus, seemed to get made. It wasn’t always as straightforward as you’d think for a company that size. It felt… reactive a lot of the time.
The Day-to-Day Hustle and Bustle
You’d see these big, bold marketing campaigns being planned out, all about strength and determination, the usual stuff. Sounded great on paper. But then, something would pop up in the news, or some other brand would make a move, or even a comment from a high-up would filter down, and suddenly, everything would be up in the air. Meetings, more meetings, and a whole lot of re-strategizing, or at least, that’s what they called it.
Here’s what I pieced together from my little corner:
- Constant Course Correction: It felt like they were always trying to navigate a very narrow path. One week, the push would be all about performance above all else. The next, after some public feedback or a competitor’s campaign, there’d be a sudden shift to emphasize community or some social angle.
- Internal Silos: You could sense different departments had their own priorities, and sometimes they didn’t seem to align. Marketing might want one thing, product development another, and then corporate communications would come in with a whole different set of concerns, especially if things got a bit heated publicly.
- The “Hot Topic” Effect: If something became a big talking point on social media, whether it directly involved them or not, you could bet there’d be discussions about “how we should respond” or “if we should say something.” Sometimes, the decision was to stay quiet, but that decision itself felt like it went through a whole wringer.
I remember one specific instance, though I won’t go into super detail. There was a bit of a public to-do about an athlete they sponsored. Nothing too crazy, but enough to get people talking. And boy, the internal back-and-forth I overheard or saw in email chains (you know how it is, you get cc’d on everything sometimes) was wild. It wasn’t just about “is this good for the brand?” It was more like, “what’s the safest move?” or “how do we spin this so we don’t look bad?” It felt less about a core belief and more about crisis management, even for small things.
It seemed like they were trying to be everything to everyone sometimes, which, as we all know, usually means you don’t fully connect with anyone. One group of execs might push for a more outspoken stance on certain issues, while another would argue for playing it safe and focusing only on sports. This tug-of-war, that’s what I mean by “politics.” It’s not necessarily a bad thing, all companies have it, but it was just… very visible, even to a temp like me.
So, when I see Under Armour making moves now, or hear about their campaigns, I often wonder what kind of internal ballet went on behind the scenes to get there. It’s not a clean, simple process, from what I saw. It’s messy, it’s human, and it’s definitely got its own brand of internal politics steering the ship. Just my two cents from my brief time looking in.