Very good New Nike Ad
Posted in Uncategorized
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aPkyPdubqDs
I like the VO. It doesn’t sound like I’ve heard one like it before and is an interesting contrast to the Tesco one below. That could have had this kind of VO and been better (but that still wouldn’t have helped with the strategic difficulties).
And it’s an interesting, empowering suggestion: if you can do that, why not this? So just do it.
It is a 25 year old brand story … always expressed in a fresh new way. I do like it. Music is great. Bradley Cooper makes a great VO, probably because it is not treated as a VO but as an inner-gettin’-pumped voice.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…
It was Bradley Cooper.
I had no idea.
I like it too.
But I know that I will hate the first VO that copies it more.
I am not 100% sure, especially since the first sentence sounds like it was done over a telephone line. But rest sounds a lot like him (ie in the ‘Limitless’ trailer)
VO seemed really familiar but I couldn’t quite place it.
Then I read the first comment and it all made perfect sense.
It’s like the scene in Limitless where Cooper double drops the happy pills and can do anything.
Wonder if the creative drew inspiration from that very scene?
Best new ad – regardless of category -in a long time.
It’s good, but it’s a minute and a half long. Where will it run? I’ll be interested to see how much chopping it down to a :30 will do to it. It’s a lot easier to do something good in :90 than it is in :30.
If it is Bradley, surely he should be saying “WTF is a Pique?” Messi unavailable clearly.
Good ad. Almost makes me want to get punched by Andre Ward.
Here’s the thing. I never liked any Nike ad, ever. I despise the “be this, be that, you could be this, you could be that” attitude they’re always trying to push down my throat.
Of course sports have a lot to do with picking yourself up every time to get your fat ass to run that extra mile and accomplish something, to push yourself. And Nike, being the market leader (assumably), can do whatever they want to grow the market.
But I’m still supposed to buy that running shoe for £100 (or however much they cost). And at the end of the day, the ad doesn’t tell me why I should buy Nike over Adidas. To be fair, neither does Adidas.
But it’s probably just me.
Feels like a bit of a return to form for Nike/W&K in terms of a TV spot. I reckon it’ll survive cutting to 30s very well – 2-3 scenarios per edit with a revised VO that wraps up each cut. Easy. And as for attitude vs. benefit over the competition… well that’s all they’ve got, isn’t it? How is that any different to past classics, like ‘Park Life’ or ‘St Wayne’? Seems to have worked bloody well for 30 years.
I see what you’re saying but I also see where S&C is coming from.
It’s ALL attitude, isn’t it? I suppose that when you go into Footlocker or Size? you are more likely to be driven by which one you ‘like’ more because they are are basically the same in terms of function.
But that doesn’t ‘excuse’ them trading off nothing more than a generic celebration of the category and its benefits. So much technology goes into these things, you’d think some promotion of that differentiating information would be possible.
But no… In the sportswear world ’twas ever thus (well, from the time W&K stepped in, anyway).
Here’s some evidence to fuel your second to last paragraph Ben:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm6UhMKF8DU
and the first 90 seconds of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fWhYOt57i8
You CAN do ads that aren’t all about attitude and they are a quadrillion times more persuasive to me than any Nike ad ever.
@steakandcheese
Lovely ads. But a little like comparing apples and oranges. The Pump had a feature which delivered a benefit, which the ad dramatised excellently. The new Nike ad is much broader, covering all sportswear – a brand ad, I guess. But you win on the Asics ad; it’s lovely, particularly the VO which oozes authenticity (but after 90 seconds I still came away thinking merely “Japanese sports shoes”).
The Assics one explained the idea that came to him while eating octopus. Why not put suction cups on the soles of shoes to give them more grip? Again, that’s a very good product benefit to sell. Same goes for the pump shoes.
Like Ben said, with all the technology that goes into today’s shoes, it seems a bit lazy to just do brand ads. You build your brand on the products you sell, not the other way around. But it seems like once you’re big enough, like Nike, you can do whatever the hell you want and get away with it.
I’m still waiting for a sports equipment manufacturer who does a 180 and makes fun of all these aspirational idiots. I want to see someone pushing himself too hard (because he’s been told by ads that he can achieve whatever he puts his mind to) and then failing miserably in the presence of the smarter punter, who doesn’t fall for it and sets himself achievable goals and buys a better shoe than our brandict.
The end of the ad is fabulous.
As you point out Ben, putting attitude ahead of attributes in the ads isn’t something Nike started doing when they got big. It’s part of how they got big.
Here’s what I think is the first ‘Just do it’ ad from 25 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCJ7G-vY4vA
It looks a little dated now.
Giving rational reasons to choose a product or brand over its competitors is one model of advertising. But not the only one. And not always the most effective one.
The IPA book ‘Marketing in the Era of Accountability’ by Les Binet and Peter Field examines 27 years of IPA Effectiveness Case Studies and concludes, along other things,”The most effective campaigns are those that rely primarily on emotional rather than rational models… Emotionally based campaigns are not only likely to produce very large business effects but also produce more of them, outperforming rational campaigns on every single business measure.”
There are technical differences between Nike shoes and those of their competitors. You can find them online at Nike.com. The IPA data, and our experience on Nike, suggest that putting that info in the TV ads would make the ads less effective.
Very informative. Thanks Neil.
And does that apply to Tesco.
It applies to most ATL advertising, other than direct response and tactical messages. So, yes, our approach to the Tesco food campaign is similar. The same approach also informs campaigns like Three, Southern Comfort, Lurpak, Chrysler, Honda, etc.
And also, I guess, John Lewis, Cadbury, Dove, Lynx, etc.
This is nothing new. I remember BBH were talking about the death of the USP, and the dawn of the ESP (emotional selling point) back in the ’80s.
@HB the reason messi isn’t there is cause he’s all in with Adidas. http://youtu.be/st3F_P8o3AE