Monday, April 21, 2008

Nike Ads Today

So this is what Nike ads are like today.

First off, it doesn’t own up to being an ad. (It hasn’t run on TV). And, it didn’t cost much to make, with the possibly massive exception of Kobe Bryant’s fee.



And this is the type of Nike ad I grew up with – Good vs Evil.



Production cost - enough to feed a small country for a year. Add in the media cost, and you could buy that country.

So have things got better, or worse? And for who?

28 comments:

Ted said...

Nice question,
Anyway I think that you can grow on the second one, and you can easily forget the Kobe one (really nothing special).

Ciao! ted

www.thenameroma.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

No surprises that there are loads of yanks jumping over cars on YouTube. The fact that they featured a 'bling' aston martin ws a bit stereotypical too. The Good v Evil one was a classic.

the Golden oracle of truth said...

I liked both in different ways.

Lo-fi, bored-at-work, no-pressure.

and super-event, giant-budget-wankarama.

By the way, in the next Kobe Bryant viral he uses his amazing penis of sexual assault to lasso a passing lady.

Anonymous said...

The hype that used to surround the old Nike ads was great. When a they used to come on tv, everyone would just shut up. It was super cool use of the stars (see also Airport and the one on the boat that Terry Gilliam did). But over the years, they became very samey and a bit shit (see Ole - the Portugal v Brazil one of a few years ago). It was just overpaid football stars performing nutmegs on each other, and was frankly pretty dry, so the campaign needed to move on.

Cut to:

The Kobe Briant one is ok, but I have no urge to send it on. For me to want to forward an ad to someone, it needs to be special, and frankly, knowing that there's no way that his insurance company would have let him do that, illustrates the point that it's just a bit of clever camera trickery.

Do something better.

Anonymous said...

Does this raise a moral issue over the non-branding of online ads.

It's a bit different when The Economist do it on a poster. It's a poster - everyone knows it's an ad. But online you're never sure if you're watching a superstar's home movie or bought credibility from a sweatshop owner.

It's probably only a matter of time until we're obliged to make it clear which is which, but in the meantime should we be being more responsible about it?

Anonymous said...

Nup I'm going to go the other way on this one. I'm a big NBA fan, and the reaction from the basketball community on this one is the same as the ad community's reaction to Gorilla. It's been talked about on ESPN quite a few times, as well as every basketball podcast. And people are saying that it might push him over the edge in the MVP race. And at the end of the day that'll sell Nike shoes.

Anonymous said...

I could do that. I reckon.

Anonymous said...

The older one is a classic. This one with Kobe isn't particularly impressive or memorable, whether in camera or not (and the question itself of whether or not its real waters down it's effectiveness. And yes, i'm sure it is possible, but unlikely they'd risk someone of the massive sporting worth of Bryant). Nike did much better 'viral' work
recently with the guy tying his boot laces up through his own feet. Evidently a set-up, but far more memorable. And cooler than a cliched bling Aston Martin.

Anonymous said...

Pot Noodle should re-shoot it with a Ford Transit Van.

john dodds said...

As soon as I realised it was Bryant, my attitude changed. For insurance reasons and his Laker's contract, he has to be jumping to the side of the car (and it would be interesting to slow down the video and see if he actually clears the windscreen) - so people like me will suspect fakery and it's questionable what that does to their attitude to NIke. And the big danger of featuring seemingly achievable stunts is what happens when some kid gets hurt trying to emulate it for youtube?

None of that answers your question, of course. and my feeling on that is that the new one couldn't work without all that had gone before that has built up your awarenes sof Nike.

Paul H. Colman said...

Hey Scamp,

Drop me a mail at paul.colman@wk.com

Good afternoon,
Pc.

Rob Mortimer said...

They both work in different ways.
I agree pretty much with Anon 11-23.

Anonymous said...

The big budget ad looks so try-hard. The viral is low-key and cool - and a perfect indication of where advertising is now. (And I thought you were supposed to clock that he wasn't actually jumping the car - bit of a larf...)

pisspoorenglish said...

"Pot Noodle should re-shoot it with a Ford Transit Van"

i'd much, much prefer that.

didn't like that aston martin bobbins. maybe it's not quite meant for Brits though, to me it embodies a lot of stuff your average brit hates, but the avergae american seems to love. brap.

Anonymous said...

Hasn't Guy Ritchie just directed a mega bucks new nike ad? haven't seen it but whole of The Mill has been booked out for months on it so expect lots of special effects and maybe a return to the big nike ad?

rjhayter said...

Where's the creative idea in repeating something millions of people have already seen on YouTube? "Good vs Evil" is a great example of how to use celebrity endorsement properly (although I agree that Nike's football ads went downhill in the following years).

Seems that clients are all desperate to jump on the YouTube/user-created content bandwagon ("hey, it worked for those Pringles guys!" I can hear them say). But they still love celeb endorsement. Perhaps the ultimate cross breed is the p*sspoor Pepsi Max ad on TV right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9w8jmz-jXc&feature=related

Anonymous said...

in 15 years time, will we be on here saying "Can you remember the first time you saw that ad where Kobe jumped over a car?"

Highly unlikely.

guide dogs for the blind said...

it's shit int it?

Anonymous said...

It's always good to evolve and move on. It can't all be 30 second commercials, as much as many would love it to be.

Though there will always be the idea and story and that needs to take the front seat always. Otherwise, we'll confuse things like media for the actual idea, which is happening already.

Anonymous said...

Pepsi advertising is an absolute fucking disgrace.

Nick said...

The classic shits on the new. It was great seeing that old ad. Still holds up well today I reckon. I can see what Nike are trying to do with the new one but it falls way too short. I wouldn't bother passing it on, I'm sure there's a load of people that would but it'll get forgotten about pretty soon.

Anonymous said...

i like the kobe thing. it´s a step forward. but it´s not a breaking point from anything.
nike (w+k) did glorious commercials. but i´m getting fucking tired of the same ol´bullshit. that´s why i like the kobe thing.
i mean the narration "i fell the heat, yea and when the heats on me i go for the water, there´s nothing like the water, when you got the heat ´cause the heat..." is getting fucking old!
i mean the "my better is better than your better" thing is cool. but can´t you paint that picture some other way? it´s been what 20 years? black backround. music. fast editng. close face eastwood look take. inspiring narration. fuck!
and then there´s the kobe thing.
it´s a step forward.

Anonymous said...

Tony Kaye? Is that you?

]-[appy Thought said...

Athlete acting has improved over the last few years though. I remember when I was a kid we all used to pull our shirts up and shout "Au reviour!" before missing the goal by miles, but looking at it again it was baaaaaaaaaad. The Kobe thing is full of the kind of front only black superstars can pull off, but he does it well. And I like the "do not try this at home" mandatory bit at the end too. The fact they admit it could be a fake is also a step forward from agencies producing stuff that is obviously fake, then claiming it isn't for years after. Good to see Nike not treating their audience like total morons.

And I'll get on the blower with Pot Noodle right away. I'm thinking Ricky from East Enders getting hit trying to jump a Bedford Rascal. Anyone top that?

Anonymous said...

Bedford Rascals are too small. Try an Eddie Stobart.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:43 AM

New Buzz Marketing legislation means that viral campaigns can't be broadcast via any channel without first letting the user/audience know that it is work produced to promote a brand or product. Check it out on the IPA site.

The days of unbranded virals like subservient are over because of that dubious moral question posed by the likes of this Kobe Bryant shit.

PR said...

well,

If you look it up on youtube, there are many people "exposing" the "hoax" behind this commercial... tricking people is not a very smart move in the internet world... not unless you are creating a openly fictional ad.

good vs evil... great, hollywood, entretainment, huge, fun, agressive...

But the bottomline is that an ad must be built for a certain specific platform.

low tech looks good in youtube.

hollywood looks good in theatres and tV.

Giles Rhys Jones said...

round 2 of "kobe jumps". nice and i am already looking forward to the next one...

http://interactivemarketingtrends.blogspot.com/2008/06/nike-kobe-vs-jackass.html