The W
Views: 100000747
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.14 1532
The W - Baseball - SOX WIN! (Page 3)
This thread has 71 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.23
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
(896 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (48 total)
Wolfram J. Paulovich
Frankfurter








Since: 11.11.02
From: Fat City, Baby

Since last post: 2957 days
Last activity: 2328 days
AIM:  
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.25
    Originally posted by Torchslasher
    I wanted to speak on this, because this was an AMAZINGLY callous and fake ad by Nike.

I don't see how this is "amazingly callous." To a certain extent, many ads are callous because they focus on a certain need of a certain group, to the exclusion of all others. Consider the torture of 90-year-old men whose bones are dust, who suddenly see Cialis and Viagra ads. They haven't been able to achieve erection for 30 years, and now they couldn't have sex without breaking both femurs. Don't you think they think the trumpeting of the Senior Citizen Erection is a little callous and unfair? (This doesn't even mention women who cannot achieve orgasm from basic sex at the age of 20. Suddenly, they realize that even old men have one more bonus than they.) I mean, really, callousness is a pretty general by-product of many ads.

Most importantly, callousness is probably inherent in advertising. After all, a multi-million- (or multi-billion-) dollar company is spending millions to profit from you, at the expense of other companies and even other people. (If everyone who bought a luxury car compromised, bought a Honda Civic, then donated the difference to charity, we might eliminate poverty.) What you are calling callousness is basically choice. Nike is selling you their choice: choice of shoe, choice of team, whatever. It's only objectionable because you object to it. I, and others, think it's fine. But we agree with the choice.

Besides (and not to generate a cheap shot here, but to get to the basics of the word you used), if we want to talk callousness, we might do better to reflect on the millions of dollars spent in creating and airing that ad in contradistiction to the thousands of sweatshop workers Nike employs. That's a bigger topic, and a better one, probably. (Which is not to say that you were unaware of or unfamiliar with it. It's just that it's a bigger topic.)



    I think that most of us can read between the lines and see a company that shouldn't be advocating one team over another DOING EXACTLY THAT.

See, I don't get this at all. Not because I don't understand the impetus for your statement, but because I don't believe that truth has anything to do with advertising. Nor do I believe that advertisements are held to any measure of objectivity. Is there a rule anywhere that says that Nike cannot choose sides? Is there a standard -- as in, one hopes, American journalism -- of objectivity to which we hold ads?

The fact is that ads are so unobjective that to expect objectivity of them is ludicrous. We would never expect Gilette to say, "The Mach 3 Turbo is a superior product, but we concede that the Schick Quattro is an excellent razor that, in its own right, has a claim on excellence as well." Objectivity and regarding both sides of an argument has nothing to do with advertising. Granted, it would be cool if Nike ran its own competing ad, wherein it stamped "Just Do It" on the Cards or Astros. I'd love that, but that's not the point.

The point is that ads push, pull or cajole people towards a product, using any available and easy means. Anyone who likes the drama and the story of the Boston Red Sox (and that's a lot of people, including die-hards and post-season well-wishers) sees that ad; and, because of the quiet sentiment or nostalgia that they like or advocate, they associatively like Nike a little bit more. Nike does well; good for them.

If you're going for outrage, you're going for partisan outrage. If so, there are lots of ads to be angry about for social and political reasons... hell, economical and civil liberties ones as well. And why not basic physical sense? Why not loathe Gatorade ads that suggest people can sweat pure Gatorade? That's physically impossible! Why not castigate those Nike or Reebok (or whatever) ads from a year ago that purported to show real footage of someone jumping the span of a drawbridge, or Andy Roddick drilling a tennis ball two-inches deep into clay? They actually presented themselves as real. That's potentially more objectionable or reprehensible than saying, "Isn't this story, this history, neat? Go Sox!"

Look, I won't hide my bias. I love the Sox like crazy. But the funny thing about that ad was that I originally thought it was a Fox Sports promo for the World Series. I didn't think it was an ad. Part of the reason was because I saw it and thought, "How true." Because there are 90-year-old men who have loved the Sox for their entire lives, but never remember seeing them win a World Series. That's true; that's not some spin. Sure, when the Nike slogan ran underneath, I was a little surprised. But it finished, and I thought, "What a classy ad." It wasn't flashy and LOUD and in my face. It was slow, patient, almost respectful of the audience. It let me understand it at my own pace. As an ad, it's very very good.

As a breach of social order, though, it doesn't rate as a worry.



    I was so disgusted by this phony sentiment that I seriously might go out of my way to never buy a pair of Nike footwear ever again. That was such pandering to the highest order.

Two things:

1. To you, it was a "phony" sentiment. To millions of Sox fans, it's dead authentic. To the millions more who aren't necessarily Sox fans but who respect the struggle and torture that Sox fans have endured, it's appropriate -- even if it's not a sentiment that takes primacy in their own lives. To a Yankee or Astros or Cards fan, it might be callous and reprehensible, but that judgment owes more to the viewer's personal fan-dom, rather than to anything inherent in the ad itself.

2. Pandering. I see it, but it doesn't bother me. All ads pander in some way. If you fall outside their field of pandering, you don't buy the product. And, as you've said, you may not buy Nike now. To Nike, that's probably fine. They looked at the odds and rolled the dice, betting that millions more people would love the ads than balk at them. (Nike is also acutely aware that, one year from now, your ire will have subsided, while their latest eye-catching series of ads will have gotten your attention and washed over that bilious October 2004 reaction.)

It is an ad's job to take a side and then run with it. I can only muster your indignation when I think of ads tacitly electioneering. If Nike ran an ad featuring the guy who played Lurch running spastically in a non-brand shoe, then showed a lipless Texan Matrix-fighting his way through ninjas while wearing a Nike shoe, then I'd be furious. Because that is electioneering. That influences the populace and thus the popular vote.

However, no matter how many Sox converts this ad wins, it doesn't mean anything on the field of play. Nike could generate 2 million more members of the Red Sox Nation, but that doesn't mean anything if the hitters can't hit and the pitchers can't nail the low-outside corner. It's an ad. It can't soil the purity of the turf. It's not going to appreciably change the Vegas line, and it's not going to change the players. If it were a politcal ad, maybe. But this is sports.

Ads take sides and take liberties with the truth all the time. This one was pretty faithful to the truth. If you don't like it, fine. Don't buy Nike. But they can imply, describe, infer or suggest whatever they want. That's advertisement.

(edited by Jeb Tennyson Lund on 21.10.04 1716)


The Obtuse Angle Archive.
Whitebacon
Boudin blanc








Since: 12.1.02
From: Fresno, CA

Since last post: 68 days
Last activity: 37 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
I would imagine they'd run a similar ad tonight for the winner of the Cards/Astros game. I didn't see it last night (I listened to it on the radio at work), so I don't know the placement of the ad.



estragand
Summer sausage








Since: 18.6.02

Since last post: 2556 days
Last activity: 2556 days
AIM:  
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.19
I thought the Nike ad was about as offensive as all those football player milk print ads.

I prefer the Yankees over the Sox, myself..but there's one good thing about the Yanks' explusion from the playoffs: that Yogi Berra haircut/Aflac commercial is probably being retired. It was funny the first time I saw it..but now...



-ES
Visit ES online- it's "Internet Entertainment"!
RecklessEric
Head cheese








Since: 23.1.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.63
    Originally posted by dwaters
    Would you believe our TV station did its "Emergency Broadcast System" test with two outs in the ninth???
    They came out of it into commercials and I had no clue what was going on. Did we win? Change pitchers? Turns out it was just bringing in Embree. 24 hours in the day and they have to do their required test THEN??????

    Go Red Sox.
    After this series, anything is possible.



Yes. Adelphia can kiss my ass in hell. Oh, and GO SOX!!!



estragand
Summer sausage








Since: 18.6.02

Since last post: 2556 days
Last activity: 2556 days
AIM:  
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.19
    Originally posted by RecklessEric
    Yes. Adelphia can kiss my ass in hell. Oh, and GO SOX!!!

Hey..along those lines, do you guys have those system-wide "AMBER ALERT" blackouts in your area? A few weeks ago, the whole clan was gathered in the cave watching the Broncos game and EVERY channel on Comcast switched to an annoying "amber alert". After the alert went off, all channels were the same as the local channel 3 for awhile. Missed about 2 minutes of the game. I know these things are required by law... but unless the Yellowstone caldera has just erupted or we've been nuked, a little discrepancy is needed.




-ES
Visit ES online- it's "Internet Entertainment"!
Roy.
Pepperoni








Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2358 days
Last activity: 828 days
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.90
See, unless it's an Amber Alert Test, they can interrupt my programming all they want to, if it saves some little kid's life (as it has been proven to do).
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 107 days
Last activity: 2 days
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.01
    Originally posted by estragand
      Originally posted by RecklessEric
      Yes. Adelphia can kiss my ass in hell. Oh, and GO SOX!!!

    Hey..along those lines, do you guys have those system-wide "AMBER ALERT" blackouts in your area? A few weeks ago, the whole clan was gathered in the cave watching the Broncos game and EVERY channel on Comcast switched to an annoying "amber alert". After the alert went off, all channels were the same as the local channel 3 for awhile. Missed about 2 minutes of the game. I know these things are required by law... but unless the Yellowstone caldera has just erupted or we've been nuked, a little discrepancy is needed.


You mean that a child was abducted and the network had the temerity to take a moment to issue an alert? What chutzpah!! It must have really put everyone out. I mean, can't they just wait until after the game ends to try and find the abductee. What difference could a couple of hours make? {sarcasm}
estragand
Summer sausage








Since: 18.6.02

Since last post: 2556 days
Last activity: 2556 days
AIM:  
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.19
Since said alert had been issued the previous night..it seemed especially annoying to re-broadcast it and halt all transmissions in the middle of the day. I'm not the only a-hole bothered by it. The Amber overkill was a mild polictical issue around here, back in August. Forget who it was exactly, but a congressman questioned the need to have road construction signs flashing "Amber Alert". We get about one a week, now.

Edit: and just so ya' know I'm not a total heartless bastard: I don't mind a crawl, beep, or split-screen. I mind a 30 second alert..followed by a complete screen blackout and total channel reset.

Okay, back to Sox now.

(edited by estragand on 22.10.04 1028)


-ES
Visit ES online- it's "Internet Entertainment"!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread rated: 5.23
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread ahead: Mariners hire Hargrove
Next thread: Cards/Stros NLCS
Previous thread: Sox/Yanks ALCS
(896 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I think the race now is to see if Barry can tie or pass Babe Ruth before the season is out. Say what you will about the man's attitude, but his batting eye and batspeed is just awe-inspiring.
- Big Bad, Countdown to 700 cont. (2004)
Related threads: Just in time for the Sox/Yanks series - He's still got it - Sox vs. Yanks: This time it counts - More...
The W - Baseball - SOX WIN! (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.134 seconds.