The Michael Jordan Effect Crawford Anthony J Niendorf Bruce

The Michael Jordan Effect Crawford Anthony J Niendorf Bruce Ame

The Michael Jordan effect Crawford, Anthony J; Niendorf, Bruce. American Business Review; West Haven Vol. 17, Iss. 2, (Jun 1999): 5-10. This study examines the impact of Michael Jordan's retirement and subsequent return to basketball on the stock market value of the companies he endorsed. By employing an event study methodology, the researchers analyze abnormal returns for these firms during key periods surrounding Jordan's retirement in 1993 and rumors of his comeback in 1995. Results suggest that while rumors of his return temporarily boosted stock prices, these effects were short-lived and largely reversed within weeks. The findings highlight that the perceived "Jordan effect" may have been exaggerated, and market responses were influenced by broader market conditions rather than solely by Jordan's actions.

Paper For Above instruction

Michael Jordan’s career has been a phenomenon that extends beyond the basketball court, impacting various industries and influencing market dynamics. His retirement and subsequent comeback serve as compelling cases for exploring how celebrity actions influence firm valuation, particularly through stock market reactions. The 1990s saw Jordan not only dominate athletic arenas but also become a significant endorsement figure, creating a phenomenon sometimes termed the “Michael Jordan effect.” This paper critically examines the economic impact of Jordan’s retirement and return, emphasizing the short-term market reactions and their implications for understanding celebrity endorsements’ influence on shareholder wealth.

In October 1993, Michael Jordan unexpectedly retired from professional basketball, following a successful three-peat NBA championship run with the Chicago Bulls. While his athletic achievements and popularity were unassailable, his market influence was also significant due to major endorsement deals with companies like Nike, Gatorade, and McDonald's. Despite his retirement, Jordan continued to endorse these brands, maintaining his influence but also creating an environment to assess how changes in his athletic career affected the endorsed companies’ market value. The broader economic context of the 1990s was characterized by a bullish stock market, notably with the S&P 500 reaching record highs, which complicated the attribution of stock price changes solely to Jordan’s career decisions.

Following his retirement from basketball, rumors of Jordan’s return surfaced in early 1995, igniting media frenzy and investor speculation. Between March 8 and March 20, 1995, rumors intensified, and the market responded with temporary increases in stock prices of Jordan’s endorsement affiliates. Empirical analysis reveals that during this period, the collective market value of these companies rose by approximately $2.9 billion, with an average abnormal return of 4.59% over nine trading days. However, when delving deeper into the data, it becomes evident that these gains were largely ephemeral, dissipating within weeks following the official announcement of his comeback.

The event study methodology employed in this research provides a rigorous framework to analyze abnormal returns associated with Jordan’s career milestones. This approach isolates the effects of the events from general market movements by comparing stock returns of endorsed firms to a benchmark, in this case, the S&P 500 index. The findings indicate that, initially, rumors of Jordan's return did produce a positive abnormal return—supporting the notion of a “Jordan effect.” Yet, the subsequent reversal and lack of significant long-term abnormal returns suggest that the market’s immediate overreaction was not sustained, casting doubt on the exaggerated perception of his influence on shareholder value.

Specifically, the study uncovered that upon Jordan’s official retirement in 1993, shareholders experienced a small but statistically marginal negative abnormal return of approximately -0.45%. It appears that the market anticipated a decline in endorsement value due to Jordan’s departure from basketball, which could have slightly eroded brand equity. Conversely, rumors of his return initially generated positive abnormal returns, with a peak of 1.29% and a cumulative abnormal return of 2.33%. However, by the time of his actual return announcement, these gains had largely been reversed, emphasizing the transience of the market’s reaction to celebrity endorsement rumors.

Interestingly, individual firms displayed varied reactions. For example, General Mills experienced an excess return of over 6%, whereas Nike, which markets the Air Jordan line of basketball shoes, did not show significant positive abnormal returns. This suggests that niche market factors and existing brand associations influence how endorsement-related news is reflected in stock prices. Overall, the evidence points to a market that swiftly incorporates celebrity-related news but also corrects overreactions, aligning with the efficient market hypothesis.

From a theoretical perspective, these findings challenge the perception that celebrity endorsements provide long-term value enhancements solely through increased brand equity. While celebrity influence can create short-term market excitement, the reversal indicates that such effects are often temporary and sensitive to broader economic conditions. Furthermore, the results underscore the importance of market context: during a bullish market, even speculative hype related to celebrity endormers may be amplified, but the ultimate impact on firm valuation remains limited if not supported by underlying fundamental improvements.

Implications for marketers and investors should consider that celebrity endorsements, while powerful tools for generating initial buzz, may not translate into sustained shareholder wealth gains. As Petty et al. (1983) and Kamins et al. (1989) suggest, celebrity endorsement effects are mediated by factors such as credibility and brand congruence. Yet, this analysis demonstrates that in the case of Michael Jordan, the market’s reaction to his career movements was predominantly driven by investor sentiment and macroeconomic trends rather than fundamental brand equity shifts.

In conclusion, the so-called “Michael Jordan effect” appears to be largely overstated. While short-lived abnormal returns correlate with rumors of his return, these effects are ephemeral and often reversed upon official announcements. This behavior aligns with efficient market theory, emphasizing that celebrity-related news engenders immediate but transient market reactions rather than long-term valuation changes. Therefore, investors and companies should approach celebrity endorsement news with caution, understanding that market overreactions can quickly correct, rendering such effects temporary rather than durable.

References

• Agrawal, J., & Kamakura, W. A. (1995). The Economic Worth of Celebrity Endorser: An Event Study Analysis. The Journal of Marketing, 15, 56-62.
• Berkowitz, H. (1995). They Like Mike: Mr. Jordan's Return Pleases Advertisers. Newsday.
• Brown, S., & Warner, J. (1985). Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of Event Studies. The Journal of Financial Economics, 14, 3-31.
• Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient Capital Markets: A review of Theory and Empirical Work. Journal of Finance.
• Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
• Kamins, T. B., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-Sided Versus One-Sided Celebrity Endorsements: The Impact of Advertising Effectiveness and Credibility. Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 4-10.
• McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(December), 310-21.
• Peterson, P. (1990). Anatomy of an Event Study. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics.
• Wulf, S. (1995). More Air Goes Out of Baseball. Time, March 20, 1995.
• Dorfman, J. (1995). The Jordan Effect. The Wall Street Journal.