Nike’s Advertising Department Fails At Subtlety

March 9th, 2009 | by: chris |

I think we’re getting closer and closer to the day when Nike ceases making actual athletic equipment to focus solely on making crappy virals and advertisements which have us yearning for the days of Paolo Maldini, Roberto Carlos and that ugly devil dude from ‘Au Revoir’.

This is their latest submission, in which they fail miserably at hiding their true intentions. In the video you’ll notice the highlights from Brazil & Italy’s friendly in London last month which ended up 2-0 and likely saved Dunga’s job – thus meaningless for one team, not so much for the other.

What you’ll realize almost immediately – if you hadn’t cheated by having Dirty Tackle tell you before viewing the video – is that Brazil wears Nike and Italy wears Puma. So queue the ‘Brazil v Italy: Never Friendly ad that’s mostly just highlights of Selecao flair and Andrea Pirlo’s career flashing before our very eyes (he’s recovered, thanks). And you can’t fault them for almost exclusively showing Brazilian highlights – they do, after all, sponsor the national team.

But what conclusion can one take from this game and ad? Nike > Puma, obviously. I miss the old days when – at least in the advertising realm – brands proved they were better simply by being better.

[Spotted on, again, Dirty Tackle]

International Football News – World Cup Blog RSS Feed

MoMONEY

Horrible. I miss the au revoir guy, the airport one, the “no, its rounder!” commercials… What a shame. Even Joga Bonito was subpar IMO- Adidas did much better with Jose +10
Weston

like brasil much?
http://epl.theoffside.com Wayne Farry

What’s saddest of all is that anyone with any taste will tell you that Puma is by far the superior brand.
MoMONEY

Nike was never a proper football brand anyways… Adidas was always much more so…
http://www.betsfreebets.com/ free bet

they need to hire Mckaan Ericsson
Aaron

Nike makes better cleats…
Aaron

Not supporting them or anything though. I certainly don’t condone their child labor actions.
MoMONEY

Give me some Adidas Copa Mundial’s over anything on the market please…
http://www.mcalcio.com/ Marco P.

But what conclusion can one take from this game and ad? Nike > Puma, obviously. I miss the old days when – at least in the advertising realm – brands proved they were better simply by being better.

And what criteria determined “they were better”? General opinion?

You criticize the ad for poorly hiding its real intentions, but I don’t think they were hiding anything in the first place. Connecting “Brazil 2-0 Italy” and “Nike > Puma” was too good a branding opportunity to pass up. You don’t like the commercial fine (is it even a commercial?), but don’t blame the ad department for doing their homework during marketing school.
http://www.myspace.com Tommy Wong

Honestly, I thought it was an awesome commercial, and chris, even as a fan of your blog, Roma, and Italy, you sound a bit bitter over the loss.
http://www.worldcupblog.org chris

To be honest, Tommy, you couldn’t be more wrong. I don’t get too bothered over friendlies – and as a Roma fan you should know precisely why, unfortunately.

I do, Marco. I determine if they were better.
Doc Latin

So Puma should produce its own version…fight fire with fire. It was a pointless video in my opinion.

I don’t buy Nike anyway.

Look, Brazil are the darlings of the world. They can play dirty and no one will care. It is what it is.

Italy are like the New England Patriots, Philadelphia Flyers and Oakland Raiders of soccer. I say wear the badge.

Bottom line is you guys win. The others whine. Let ‘em. They can claim all they want that Italy is “lucky.” It’s all sour grapes to me as a simplistic sports fan.

I bet you they’d want to trade any day.
luis

whats the name of this song