If the world cup is a fever, the talk about the new Nike ad is an epidemic. Most people I meet, and I hasten to add all of them are in marketing and advertising, can’t stop raving about the idea, ranting about its executional excellence, and ravishing unbridled praise on the 40 second wonder.
But I don’t see what’s in that ad that would make Nike sell more shoes in this country. Before I go on, let me clarify one thing. I am not commenting on the execution excellence or whatever of the ad. I am commenting on the strategy behind the commercial, or more precisely the lack of it. Execution is meaningless when a clear strategy is non-existent. And I don’t see any strategy behind the new Nike ad.
What is Nike? You would say ‘it’s an attitude’. Where does that attitude emanate from? Superior performance of Nike. And that is why ‘performance’ has been defined as the core of brand Nike. Not by me but by the custodians of the brand.
Now, tell me where is the performance highlighted in the ad. Does it say how Nike is the best? Does it describe why it is the best in its class? Or why you and me should be paying obscene amounts to buy a pair?
Aren’t ads about telling you and me why we should be buying it? Aren’t ads supposed to give a reason to believe?
Will you and me buy something just because it has an attitude? We might, when the brand is an affordable luxury. We might go to Barista to pick a cup of coffee at Rs.50 if we feel that helps us make a statement about ourselves. Selling coffee with ‘an attitude’ might do the trick then. But when we are supposed to cough up Rs. 2,000 or Rs. 3,000 (the hell, I don’t even know how much a Nike costs; talks enough about how much their ads make me want to enter a Nike showroom and buy one) don’t we want a solid reason for buying?
You might say, but don’t we know Nike is about performance. Who are the ‘we’? You, me and a couple of hundreds of those who make a living by marketing and advertising brands. Not the millions of others for whom Nike is another shoe. Even that is assuming if they are even aware of what the brand is all about. Don’t even try telling me Nike’s awareness and knowledge levels are high. After years of effort and millions of advertising, most leading Indian brands would be happy to have 60-70% awareness levels. And would love to have TOM scores even one-fourth of it.
Where does Nike stand? Zilch or pretty much close to it, when it comes to millions of potential customers across the country (the unfortunate ones who don’t belong to the glorified fields of marketing and advertising!)
The Nike ad doesn’t give me one good reason why I should be buying it. If it’s about selling an attitude, I am not sure how many of us would cough up thousands just for it. Performance is where the attitude comes from and that is missing in the ad.
But Nike ads in the U.S do the same thing you say. Yes, that is U.S, a country where Nike has been advertising for donkeys years; where they have established without a shade of doubt the superior quality of the shoes, the brilliance of its manufacturing and impeccability of its design and what not. They can afford to highlight attitude alone; the hell, they don’t even want to write the words NIKE in the ad. Sheer logo would do.
And this is India. We don’t know Nike. Or the reason it is supposed to be the best pair of shoes our hard-earned money can buy. We know Nike is a shoe, has the swoosh logo, and ‘just do it’ as its tagline. Nothing more, nothing less. Not enough reason for many to spend thousands on it.
Want more proof? Remember a brand called ‘Pleasure’. Yeah, the scooter from Hero Honda that said girls in India should buy it and asked the question ‘why should boys have all the fun’. Wonder why the scooter never started or sold. The answer is simple. What the brand said – ‘why should boys have all the fun’ – just defined who the target for the brand was. But it never gave a promise or a solid reason why that target should go and buy it. ‘Pleasure’ failed because it expected people to spend Rs.40,000 for asking the boys ‘why should you alone have so much fun’. Expensive statement for the consumer to make. The consumer chose to ask it by buying a Scooty, that gave them enough reason to believe; more than enough promise to buy!
Moreover, the Nike ad could be an ad for any other brand, for crying out loud. I will not be surprised if people mistook it for a Pepsi ad. Remember the ad has a few cricketers in their blues as well. So much for it!
But I don’t see what’s in that ad that would make Nike sell more shoes in this country. Before I go on, let me clarify one thing. I am not commenting on the execution excellence or whatever of the ad. I am commenting on the strategy behind the commercial, or more precisely the lack of it. Execution is meaningless when a clear strategy is non-existent. And I don’t see any strategy behind the new Nike ad.
What is Nike? You would say ‘it’s an attitude’. Where does that attitude emanate from? Superior performance of Nike. And that is why ‘performance’ has been defined as the core of brand Nike. Not by me but by the custodians of the brand.
Now, tell me where is the performance highlighted in the ad. Does it say how Nike is the best? Does it describe why it is the best in its class? Or why you and me should be paying obscene amounts to buy a pair?
Aren’t ads about telling you and me why we should be buying it? Aren’t ads supposed to give a reason to believe?
Will you and me buy something just because it has an attitude? We might, when the brand is an affordable luxury. We might go to Barista to pick a cup of coffee at Rs.50 if we feel that helps us make a statement about ourselves. Selling coffee with ‘an attitude’ might do the trick then. But when we are supposed to cough up Rs. 2,000 or Rs. 3,000 (the hell, I don’t even know how much a Nike costs; talks enough about how much their ads make me want to enter a Nike showroom and buy one) don’t we want a solid reason for buying?
You might say, but don’t we know Nike is about performance. Who are the ‘we’? You, me and a couple of hundreds of those who make a living by marketing and advertising brands. Not the millions of others for whom Nike is another shoe. Even that is assuming if they are even aware of what the brand is all about. Don’t even try telling me Nike’s awareness and knowledge levels are high. After years of effort and millions of advertising, most leading Indian brands would be happy to have 60-70% awareness levels. And would love to have TOM scores even one-fourth of it.
Where does Nike stand? Zilch or pretty much close to it, when it comes to millions of potential customers across the country (the unfortunate ones who don’t belong to the glorified fields of marketing and advertising!)
The Nike ad doesn’t give me one good reason why I should be buying it. If it’s about selling an attitude, I am not sure how many of us would cough up thousands just for it. Performance is where the attitude comes from and that is missing in the ad.
But Nike ads in the U.S do the same thing you say. Yes, that is U.S, a country where Nike has been advertising for donkeys years; where they have established without a shade of doubt the superior quality of the shoes, the brilliance of its manufacturing and impeccability of its design and what not. They can afford to highlight attitude alone; the hell, they don’t even want to write the words NIKE in the ad. Sheer logo would do.
And this is India. We don’t know Nike. Or the reason it is supposed to be the best pair of shoes our hard-earned money can buy. We know Nike is a shoe, has the swoosh logo, and ‘just do it’ as its tagline. Nothing more, nothing less. Not enough reason for many to spend thousands on it.
Want more proof? Remember a brand called ‘Pleasure’. Yeah, the scooter from Hero Honda that said girls in India should buy it and asked the question ‘why should boys have all the fun’. Wonder why the scooter never started or sold. The answer is simple. What the brand said – ‘why should boys have all the fun’ – just defined who the target for the brand was. But it never gave a promise or a solid reason why that target should go and buy it. ‘Pleasure’ failed because it expected people to spend Rs.40,000 for asking the boys ‘why should you alone have so much fun’. Expensive statement for the consumer to make. The consumer chose to ask it by buying a Scooty, that gave them enough reason to believe; more than enough promise to buy!
Moreover, the Nike ad could be an ad for any other brand, for crying out loud. I will not be surprised if people mistook it for a Pepsi ad. Remember the ad has a few cricketers in their blues as well. So much for it!
Finally, those who rave about the Nike ad say the ad is trying to celebrate the spirit of cricket. At last count I found 4,578 ads doing the same thing during commercial breaks. Nike was No. 4,579!
3 comments:
Well the Nike Cricket Shoe costs around Rs 8000 if that is of any comfort...
If you didnt understand the ad, then maybe Nike isn't a brand that is meant for u to begin with!
I am no great marketer or advertiser like the person writing this blog but thanks to the education I received on how to look at advertisements, I am not that naive now.When I read the article here and saw the advertisement, I did agree with a few things. One only because I knew I was looking at a Nike advertisement did I know it was Nike..hide the brand name and I'd blink. Because I believe the hallmark of a good advertisement is that even without the brand the consumer ought to know it's your ad.I know a lot of good ads like that...Saint Gobain, Naukri.com, and a lot of other brands. Because in this advertisement, throughout I saw people running around and didn't see the focus on shoes at all which is what I believe Nike deals in. Finally this looked like one of those peppy advertisemtns that say "Come on India, or Jeeto India". May be Nike tried a Pepsi but then me toos don't work in advertising!!!!
Post a Comment