Ad Report Card: The Nike Offensive
Posted Monday, Sept. 25, 2000, at 7:09 PM ETShortly after the now-infamous Nike "chain-saw" ad aired during Olympic broadcasts last week, I got a couple of e-mails from "Moneybox" readers. One recommended the spot as Ad Report Card fodder because "it's the funniest and most memorable ad we've seen in quite some time." The second e-mail, however, called the same spot "one of the worst ads I've ever seen. ... I was outraged." Before I had a chance to see it, the commercial was yanked by NBC, apparently because of viewer comments that ran closer to the views of the latter e-mail. I asked around a little more, and two (female) Slate colleagues told me they enjoyed the ad ("It rocked"), but one (male) colleague found it to be eye-rollingly "poor taste." So what's all the hubbub about? You can see for yourself, using the QuickTime plug-in to view the ad here by way of AdCritic.com. (The ad is also supposedly viewable using the Flash plug in on Nike's Web site--click on the box in the lower left-hand corner, which will say "Hot and Tasty TV Spots" when your cursor hovers over it--but I wasn't able to get it to work on my computer.)
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
56.6 modem
T1 connection
Download Windows Media Player
The Ad: A young blond woman is in the bathroom of her big old house in the middle of nowhere, washing up. Crickets bleat. She takes her shirt off. A cat meows. It's quiet--too quiet. And sure enough! There, in the mirror: an evil intruder, in a hockey mask, weilding a chain saw! Scary orchestral music blares. The woman screams. And screams, and screams. She runs (in pants, sports bra, and sneakers) from the house and through the woods. Chain-saw man pursues. They tumble on through the trees, the camera cutting quickly from chain-saw man to the fleeing woman and back. Chain-saw man moans, and at length, he stops. He's winded. He just can't keep up. The woman darts off to safety, having left the panting villain behind. "Why sport?" asks the closing type. "You'll live longer." And of course the Nike swoosh materializes as the unathletic bogeyman limps back through the woods.
The Intent: The ad, which was made by a Portland, Ore., ad firm called Wieden & Kennedy, is pretty obviously a spoof of a horror flick. It's one entry in a "Why sport?" campaign, which answers the question in various ways that are meant to be amusing. Presumably people who follow Olympic sports more closely than I do will recognize the blond woman as Suzy Favor Hamilton, a U.S. track athlete.
The Complaint: One line of criticism about the spot is that it's trying to score laughs off the plight of a helpless, weak, screaming woman. Another is that it's too scary for little kids who may well be watching the family-friendly Olympics.
I did not find the ad to be incredibly offensive. Nike did not exactly invent the damsel in distress. Slasher films invariably depict women as squealing victims, so it somehow seems a little off the mark to criticize a parody for the sins of the genre it's poking fun at. After all, plenty of advertising depicts women as little more than aesthetically pleasing objects with a perfectly straight face, which seems, in the larger view of things, like a bigger problem. Still, I'll go along with the idea that this one could have been handled better--all of Suzy Favor Hamilton's screaming could have either been camped up or toned down, either of which would have made her seem less pathetic and provided a useful wink to the audience. Or perhaps her victory could have involved some sort athleticism that wasn't just the act of running away. And I'll concede that maybe it's a little strong for small children, but it's also not exactly The Exorcist.
The Grade: On the other hand, I didn't find the ad to be incredibly effective. This is hard to judge, because I knew how it would turn out before I ever saw it, and obviously the whole ad turns on the surprise ending of the woman getting away. The spot was somewhat amusing and absolutely an attention-getter, but it was also too long at 60 seconds and not nearly as mesmerizing as some of Nike's past commercials. I have a sense that whatever I say about this commercial will alienate roughly half the people who have seen it (which in itself is of course testimony to some degree of effectiveness: The ad has unquestionably gotten Nike a ton of attention). So I'll give it a B and run screaming from the room.
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Reader Comments from The Fray:
Implications of the Nike ad:
1) women who are out of shape deserve what they get from psycho killers.
2) lone females in the woods and psycho killers go naturally together.
--Susan Sharp
(To reply, click here.)
[This post drew a lot of replies....follow the thread]
Rob Walker doesn't think it's fair to criticize an ad for the sins of the genre it's spoofing. Of course it's fair! The genre being spoofed is slasher movies, usually rated R. But my sons and I did not go to a theater or rent an R-rated movie. The ad was foisted on us while watching the Olympics as a family. Granted, the gore that gets the R rating was not shown in the ad, but the suspense and fear that usually precedes it were clear. We could not understand what's supposed to be funny about a woman running from a man with a chainsaw--even if she gets away.
--Katherine
(To reply, click here.)
Gotham Resident wrote in The Fray:
It's easy to think you know what you'd let your kids watch before you have any. It's not in this case a matter of letting kids watch, but dealing with terrified kids after they see it. And if you are worried about your right to watch a Nike commercial--go find it on the web to your hearts' content.
--Prefer
(To reply, click here.)
I can't see the difference between Nike's slasher commercial and Nike's gladiator commercial other than one features a man and the other a woman. Both spots focus on an athlete's attempt to escape violence by using his or her athletic ability. People haven't commented or complained about the gladiator commercial. What makes male on male violence more acceptable than male on female?
--Josh Bot
(To reply, click here.)
Are they trying to market to women or 13-year-old Internet geeks who make their own firecrackers?
--Reuben Nisenfeld
(To reply, click here.)
[And here's an answer for you:]
The ads really aren't about selling shoes, but more about showing off the chops of the creative boys in the company. Its a huge macho cutting contest for major ad agencies to shut down the competition and leave them with their mouths open in awe and admiration. Sort of a sport in itself. The self reflective nature of the biz can't be ignored. Forget what they're selling--most likely it's themselves to the next client.
--Stephen Ertischeck
(To reply, click here.)
Note from the Fray Editor: ...so that would be the 13-year-old boys then, Reuben. Dan Simon (who also has ideas on a better ending for the ad) thought this was "the most unenlightening discussion in The Fray that I've encountered for some time. The posts seem to say either Hey, I thought it was funny, it's a spoof, so lighten up! or It wasn't funny, it was offensive, and the Nike ad people were idiots." Well Dan, that saves us from having to say it. None of the usual weird tangents and extraordinary views that the "Ad Report Card" feature normally brings out. Try again next week.
(9/27)