Thanks for stopping by! Hey, why don't you do what all the cool kids are doing and subscribe to my RSS feed? You know you want to, so go ahead, be bad, be very very bad... :) Thanks.
First off, I wanted to apologize for the lack of posts and comment responses last week. I have been under a deadline on a couple of campaigns launching this week and just have not had a lot of time or brainpower to write. I am hoping this week will be better.
Back to the news… Nike took out a full page ad in yesterday’s New York Times to thank Imus for his ignorance. Even though the ad did not say Imus by name, it’s point was quite obvious. A picture of the ad is here, but it is not very clear to read. The ad says,
Thank you, ignorance.
Thank you for starting the conversation.
Thank you for making an entire nation listen to the Rutgers team’s story. And for making us wonder what other great stories we’ve missed. Thank you for reminding us to think before we speak.
Thank you for showing us how strong and poised 18 and 20-year-old women can be.
Thank you for reminding us that another basketball tournament goes on in March.
Thank you for showing us that sport includes more than the time spent on the court.
Thank you for unintentionally moving women’s sport forward.
And thank you for making all of us realize that we still have a long way to go.
Next season starts 11.16.07.
According to AdAge, this week digital banners will begin running using this premise on Flip.com, Cosmogirl.com, Seventeen.com, ESPN.com, FoxSports.com and NikeWomen.com.
Nike is saying that they were “inspired” by the Rutgers women’s basketball team which is why they are doing this campaign. I think anyone in this business knows that the real reason they are doing this campaign is to piggyback this campaign on a still big news story and get a whole lot of free publicity. Good idea if it works, but my feeling is that most people are kind of tired of this whole Imus thing and would just like it to go away. I don’t know if you really want your brand associated with that.
What do you think?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Technorati Tags: Nike, New York Times, Imus, Rutgers
Related Articles:
I feel the same about this as I do about the News & Observer bidding on terms related to the Virginia Tech Massacre (http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2007/04/newspapers-tying-paid-search-to-current.html). It’s a great marketing tactic, but something about it feels opportunistic and immoral to me.
Oh pa-leeeez.
I bet this article was to be run last week but for obvious reasons did not make it into circulation. Using something like this for profit is a disgrace. What next? Use the VT shooter as a poster child for the Rifle Association? Did Imus really move womens basketball, field hockey, gymnastics to another level?
You know Cord I really struggle with this one. I blogged about the Sunday the ad came out after actually finding it in the Times. I was just not sure about it
http://mattnando.typepad.com/the_digital_perm/2007/04/the_conversatio.html
Then after reading Three Minds, I went to Nike.com and blogged about it again.
http://mattnando.typepad.com/the_digital_perm/2007/04/nike_continues_.html
(AdRants also just picked up.)
Yeah yeah, let’s sell some shoes because we are sensitive to the cause. I think this is bogus and does not really add to the conversation. Off of Nike.com you can forward the ad to your friend with of course the Nike.com logo.
It just seems very crass, but maybe there is a larger plan.
I think many consumers are savvy enough to understand that Nike did this for the publicity…in spite of their “inspired” spin. I just don’t see it having a big impact in either direction. In today’s world of information overload is anyone outside the marketing industry going to remember that Nike ran that ad 30 days from now? Will they remember 10 days from now? Seems unlikely to me. We might still be talking about Imus’ comments, (and I even wonder about that) but I expect the ad effort to get lost in the noise.
I am very torn on this very similar to what Matt discussed on his blog. I agree with David’s point that this could absolutely be taken as Nike using this for their advantage, but as Paul said consumers are savvy enough to understand.
I am stuck in the middle and the only strong feeling I have about all this is that I am sick of talking and hearing about Imus and this whole incident. The guy said something very stupid, he has lost all of his jobs, it is time to bury this puppy and move on to something else.
Yeah I can your point Paul and Cord I guess it might be just the right time to stop talking about this. But I am just disappointed that they did not do something else with it. Maybe I just expect too much.
Oh well on to better things to discuss like pick up lines using Joost.
I think that Nike has irresponsibly but predictably exploited the Rutgers team.
I believe with regards to sports, the biggest ignorance around belonged to all the people who did not follow women’s college basketball, or women’s basketball period. If you were a viewer or listener of Don Imus’ show, you were at least pretty aware of both — thanks to Imus, Chris Carlin and actually to some extent (despite his delivery), Sid Rosenberg.
There was no “unintentionally moving women’s sport forward.” Women’s college basketball was INTENTIONALLY being covered and admired. Sure, it sounds good to write it that way, but if we are really thinking before we “speak,” the goal would ideally be to say the truth.
But perhaps by ignorance, Nike means the ignorance of people other than Don Imus. In that case, again, the campaign is deliberately misleading and evasive.
What about their ignorance in respect to the use of sweat shops?
I’d prefer that Nike “just do it” and concentrate their efforts on making great (or just better) products. They have no moral authority and it just sounds strange to hear them talk about this type of thing. They’re a shoe company. Come on.
Matt - LOL, so you come up with any pick up lines using Joost? Let me know.
Bluegirl - I think you make some great points and there are a number of issues surrounding this campaign depending on how you look at it.
Jud - Preach on! Who is worse, Imus who called people names or Nike who has 10 year olds sewing shoes in sweat shops?
Stephen - You’re absolutely right, I would even add that in my opinion, Nike’s sneakers are no where close to as good as several other brands on the market. They need to focus more on quality and not buzz.
Thanks for all your comments.
Dude, I have been outta the game for so long, I Joost ain’t got no game.
I’m puzzled why anyone would think that Nike is doing anything other than ensuring its name and brand is in the public’s mind.
Share of mind (even if not share of wallet assured). That’s what it’s all about.
Of course they are blatantly exploiting the situation! At least, that’s how I see it. I think it’s perfectly in character (think sweatshops where they make their costly shoes and sportswear). I can just imagine the ad exec who rushed into the Nike ad campaign office breathlessly saying… “hey, how about this for a campaign? And it’ll look like we’re showing support for the Rutgers Team, well, ‘cos we will be. Kind of!”
Topical, To the Point and Totally self-serving. Even if people want to forget it they still have to talk about Nike.
And it’s working… look how everyone is talking about the whys and wherefores of their ad. It might even convert into sales - after all they do make sportswear and it dissing Imus is by default supporting “atheletes everywhere”. Hey, maybe the Rutger’s team will have new sponsors and brand new kit…!
But if it doesn’t increase sales I think it hardly matters to them.
I think the key thing is, from Nike’s marketing view is that - People Are Talking About Nike,Wondering About Nike, Writing About Nike. And doing a search on Nike.