OT: Nike Ad
 

I don't know if this was posted before, but here's some more info on the Nike ads with the athletes doing the different sports. It's from Slate. com.

hxxp://slate.msn.com//id/2097057/

Trading Places
In Nike's alternate sporting universe, Serena spikes, Marion vaults, and Agassi plays short.
By Seth Stevenson
Posted Monday, March 15, 2004, at 7:07 AM PT

The spot: We've entered some sort of alternate sporting universe. Lance Armstrong, world's greatest cyclist, is a boxer nicknamed "the Texas Tickler." Andre Agassi, in this life a tennis champ, plays shortstop for the Boston Red Sox. Baseball pitcher Randy Johnson has become a pro bowler. What can it all mean? There's a three-word answer, and it's fading in now: "Just Do It." Cue swoosh logo.

Shaquille O'Neal in a sumo loincloth—oh, the hours I've whiled away, happily contemplating that image.

Wait, that came out wrong. What I mean to say is that this ad brings to life one of my favorite bar-stool discussions: What if superstar athletes had taken up different sports? Posit: NBA guard Allen Iverson would revolutionize lacrosse; NFL wide-out Terrell Owens could dominate World Cup soccer; and don't even start me ranting about Nomar Garciaparra on the squash court. (He'll need a new gig, anyway, now that Andre's stolen his job.)


It's such time-honored sports-fan philosophizing, you'd think this ad would have been done before. And it was: In the old "Bo Knows" campaign, Nike envisioned Bo Jackson playing golf and tennis, driving racecars, and so on. The difference is that Bo Knows got played for laughs while this new campaign's played for inspiration.

And actually, the detail and execution here are pretty inspiring. According to published accounts, the athletes in the ad actually performed many of the feats you see—they spent hours working with trainers to get things perfect. So that's really Serena Williams spiking that volleyball, and that's really Agassi bare-handing a bounding grounder.

Which answers part one of the bar-stool question. Physical skills do translate, to some extent. Agassi's insane eye-hand coordination helped him snare that topspinned baseball. Pretty impressive. (Though his throwing form is bizarre—like an excited, hopping chimp.)

But the second, more philosophical part of the question has much more pertinence for Nike as a brand. Do true athletes have some innate drive—a mental toughness, an eye of the tiger—that would cause them to excel at any sport they might try? The real answer is probably not: Remember, as a baseball player, Michael Jordan whiffed. But if there were some special quality—the heart of a champion—whatever that thing is, that's the Nike brand identity. That's what they want you to feel when you see the swoosh. That's what Nike is selling. A sense of athletic transcendence.

And that's what makes the spot so fantastic. Without words (except for the voice-over from the play-by-play guys, who are just there to add to the realism), it expresses the fundamental essence of the brand: soulful sporting excellence. What makes it work is the economy of expression. The campaign is titled "What If?"—but Nike wisely omits these words from the spot. In fact, there's no explanation given at all. A lesser marketing team would have spelled it all out for us in a voice-over: "What if Lance Armstrong had taken up boxing instead of cycling? What if Andre Agassi's mom had given him a baseball glove, not a tennis racket?" Nike lets it stand on its own.

Compare this to the recent Adidas campaign in which female fighter Laila Ali is seen boxing against her own father, Muhammad. (To see the spot, click here, then click on the big box that says "Impossible.") Adidas seeks nearly the same brand niche as Nike (innovative shoe technology, ultimate athletic performance) yet always seems one step behind. The "Ali vs. Ali" ad is, like the Nike ad, a carefully crafted piece of sci-fi. But it's cluttered, first by a voice-over that doesn't really add much—"Impossible isn't a fact. It's an opinion." —and second by its slightly muddled message. Why is she fighting her father? He's not the obstacle blocking the path to her dream, is he? Is she really going to slug him, Parkinson's and all? Is the Greatest about to concuss his own daughter?

By contrast, the Nike spot is clear, simple, engrossing, and brilliant.

Grade: A. When it comes to non-product-specific, brand-enhancement campaigns, there is nobody who can do it like Nike just does it.


Seth Stevenson is a frequent contributor to Slate.

______________________________________________________________

My girlfriend and I saw I the ad for the first time the other day. We fortunately had it Tivoed and watched it several times. It's simply one of the best commercials I have ever seen.

(edited to add comments)

Regarding the point that the athletes are actually doing many of the things seen there, I wonder if Marion Jones really did that vault. That's the one that seemed least likely to me. I could even buy Vick and Urlacher on the skates, but the vault looked a little sketchy.

It's a great commercial. I'm just being an ass about it. :)

I'd just like to say that Serena Williams in that volleyball outfit makes my pants feel funny. What a hottie.

Serious. I'm always getting into arguments with tasteless chaps who
don't get it.

I never really dug her, but something about the white suit against her dark skin, and the.......mmmmmmmm...ok.

Serena isn't wearing a legal pro volleyball outfit.

It needs to be smaller.

Won $50 bucks off that ad because a guy thought Randy Johnson was really bowling.

The best part of that was seeing Johnson standing in the same frame as Pete Webber.

The difference in height is staggering.

we need less Randy Johnson talk, more Serena Williams talk.

How can you think about Serena without somehow incorporating a Johnson?

I would have dug out that spike

It's very obvious that the vault was a trick of video editing.

BTW, who is Marion Jones?

You're a racist!!! The only way you find black women attractive is when they are in white clothing. You are a racist!!

j/k :D

I think the writer's logic is a little bit flawed. Michael Jordan failing at baseball after spending, what, ten years on basketball is completely irrelevant to whether or not MJ could have been a success at baseball if he had devoted himself *exclusively* to that sport from the get-go.

I think the top athletes can, to a degree, pretty much do whatever they want to, but as with anything else, it takes years of training and dedication. Michael Vick couldn't just lace up the skates and go dominate the NHL right now...although if that had been his focus from childhood, it's entirely possible.

Ditto for Agassi playing short, Serena playing volleyball, and so forth. They've got the athletic ability. It's where they channel it that dictates how they ultimately end up, IMO.

I agree to a certain point, but just because one has athletic ability doesn't mean one can shoot a basketball with any degree of accuracy, or hit a curve ball, etc. Just ask Drew Henson.

To an extent, but I'd guess that certain abilities translate better to some sports than others. The ability to jump 48" in the air is great for football and basketball, but won't do much for you in hockey or at the plate in baseball. Similiarily, some players just have a natural hockey stride that helps them skate faster than someone of equal strength might do. Or in that same vain the 'pure stroke' of a guy like Griffey Jr. isn't something that just any very good athlete would potentially have.

I like the ad, though I've never really gotten the "Serena Williams is hot" thing.

That was sort of what I was getting at with my "johnson" statement above. She is too 'manly' for me to see her as hot.

Ksyrup,

I'm not arguing that they can transition seamlessly from one to the other. My argument is that if Drew Henson had devoted himself exclusively to baseball from a young age, he might well have been able to hack it in the major leagues as a 3rd baseman. Nothing's guaranteed, of course, but then, we have yet to even see if he can hack it in the NFL, so he's not necessarily the best example to support your argument.

Fidatelo,

Yes, but it comes right back to training and what you're focusing on. I'd wager that very few, if any, people have the native ability to leap 48" in the air without any kind of training or conditioning of their muscles. Their muscles may have the right qualities to be able to do that with training, but that doesn't mean some 17 year old who's never played the sport is going to show up and just dunk a ball off a 10 foot hoop, anymore than somebody who's never played baseball is going to instinctively be able to hit a curve, or a knuckler.

Nothing is guaranteed. I'm simply arguing that if the athletes in question had chosen a different focus from the word go (as opposed to pulling an MJ and trying to change horses in midstream), they could probably have done quite well for themselves in their 'new' sports. Superstar? Maybe, maybe not. A profitable career? Probably.

Track star.

i've always held that an athlete (and we toss that term around too loosely nowadays) is one who has complete control over all 4 limbs of their body to achive a desired affect. an athlete to me is someone who can dominate in any one sport because of focusing and training, but compared to the average person they can perform to a higher degree in any physical sport.

Michael Vick won't score on a breakaway if he decided to play in the NHL tomorrow. but he was born with natural gifts that would make him more successful in that sport than me or you playing it out of the blue. sports come easily for natural athletes.

i read an interview with John Lennon in rolling stone once, and one question was "are you a musical genius?". and modestly but confidently he said , yes, he was, he could write a song on any instrument, even those on which he had no training in. [to paraphrase Lennon] "give me a french horn and i'd write a hit song" he said. that is the analogy i use for athletes. give them a sport and they'll out-perform a non-athlete.

Do people have a great natural hockey stride of a pure swing and that draws them to either hockey or baseball, or is it something from being a great athlete and then develop the stride or swing from a young age because of their athletic ability?

Also, I'd have to agree with HA on the music thing. I went to high school with a guy who played several instruments and once picked up a saxaphone having never played it before and within 15 to 20 minutes was playing it and sounding decent. It's kind of like the analogy in Good Will Hunting, he could just play. With sports I think it is somewhat different though, as one has to pick up the sport at a younger age for it to be natural to them.

athlete, athletical...whatever....

I pointed this out in a thread on the subject a week ago....girl is stacked.

Serena Williams is a butterface.

I'd butter her face.

That's just sick, dude.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was a little creeped out by the Ali vs. Ali spot.

Serena's face is her one weak spot. Not ugly by any means, but not drop dead gorgeous.

The body, however........

mmmmmmm.

I must have seen a different Serena Williams than you...

That girl down at Augies (sp?) is butt ass ugly.

Serena is yummy.

I want to see Evander Holyfield take up curling. Not in a Nike spot either. I mean before he gets killed.

It just makes me angry. Laila is just milking her father for every bit of publicity possible...it's sickening really.