Not much else to say. I get the idea and kind of like it at a race you have to generally qualify for but maybe not everyone does. Are we seeing a repeat of whatever that brand was the got dragged for quoting one of the organizers saying “Boston is not a jogging race”? Anyway discus
Not to spam the thread (can’t edit the original sorry), but I became aware of this because of this video and then couldn’t find it after the fact, but I located it. Here is one more:
Intermittent walk breaks are absolutely fine but “walkers” I would see as those who go out to walk from the get go.
Plenty like that entering marathons now and unless you have a disability or something I just don’t see the point. Any fit able bodied non geriatric person should be able to walk for 6 or 7 hours. Where people say “I ran a marathon”, these people always say I “did a marathon” not I walked the marathon so even they’re trying to cover it and aren’t as proud as they claim, I’ve “walked a marathon” on holidays sightseeing in a day in about the time some these people do these non cut off time races. Walking events are great for charity and getting people moving etc but just call it a walk and don’t get insulted.
Why would you have a goal of completing Boston if your goal is to walk a marathon?
Do people know that they can visit Boston without expensive charity entry to a marathon?
I see so many people trying to complete world marathon majors - but its usually not about time, its taking an expensive vacation and having social media cred to flaunt at people who just went to a Bruins game or toured the Constitution.
Anyways, this ad is great marketing. They don't really care what you think - they just want you talking about and sharing it.
I don't find it aspirational, inspirational, or even interesting. Boston marathon is just a race man. If you're serious about racing, Vermont City is just as good unless you're sub 2:25 (in which case McKirdy is just as good).
No fat girls no new friends im not pushy getting me my tens. Oh wait here comes the double standard army of the most unaccomplished validation craving individuals.
Anyways, this ad is great marketing. They don't really care what you think - they just want you talking about and sharing it.
I know this is the general ethos is marketing, but a company like Nike actually does care what you think. Which is why I think this ad is a little strange for them. They clearly have moved away from any sort of elitist positioning of the brand, probably to their detriment, at least for many of us around here that view them more of an Athleisure company than a legitimate sports equipment/apparel company at this point. But I'm not sure if denigrating (if you can really call this ad that) other people is the way to improve that image. Does this ad move the needle for anyone in believing Nike is now back to committing to making the best products who take running seriously? I doubt that it does.
For the record, I think getting bent out of shape about any of these ads, including recently the Sydney Sweeney fiasco, is stupid. I personally couldn't care less who gets offended. But take that out of it, is it a effective ad given the company has serious work to do to bring back buyers like us? And I'm not sure it is.
Nike is going retro and bringing back edgy messaging, perhaps to re-position as an athlete's brand like the old days.
They are making a political statement aimed at BAA. Boston should be exclusively for qualifiers - not charity participants, influencers, and scenesters. Stop excluding dedicated runners!
Nike is going retro and bringing back edgy messaging, perhaps to re-position as an athlete's brand like the old days.
They are making a political statement aimed at BAA. Boston should be exclusively for qualifiers - not charity participants, influencers, and scenesters. Stop excluding dedicated runners!
Certainly agree with your first though.
Second part, not so sure. Nike, like every brand uses and benefits from influencers.
My thought, kind of ironic that Nike stock is at its lowest in many years made an ad to alienate a huge percentage of their customers. Remember, most running shoes are purchased for walking.
Brooks and Hoka should just buy ad space and run the Nike one.
Anyways, this ad is great marketing. They don't really care what you think - they just want you talking about and sharing it.
I know this is the general ethos is marketing, but a company like Nike actually does care what you think. Which is why I think this ad is a little strange for them. They clearly have moved away from any sort of elitist positioning of the brand, probably to their detriment, at least for many of us around here that view them more of an Athleisure company than a legitimate sports equipment/apparel company at this point. But I'm not sure if denigrating (if you can really call this ad that) other people is the way to improve that image. Does this ad move the needle for anyone in believing Nike is now back to committing to making the best products who take running seriously? I doubt that it does.
For the record, I think getting bent out of shape about any of these ads, including recently the Sydney Sweeney fiasco, is stupid. I personally couldn't care less who gets offended. But take that out of it, is it a effective ad given the company has serious work to do to bring back buyers like us? And I'm not sure it is.
Nike has been athleisure for decades now.
They are still at the top in running - they make the only 5k/10k road shoe on the market (streakfly 2), the second best super shoe (vaporfly whatever number they are at), best race shorts (aeroswift 2"), best spikes (you could debate this one I guess).
Ya, but they aren't marketing like they're trying to be the best - other than the recent Fiath and Jakob lines, I guess. They are just marketing as good products, with the strategy of sponsoring half the field at global championships.
This ad doesn't sell anything, but it gets us talking about nike. Its a single piece in an advertising campaign - and your browser/socials will spit other nike ads at you after viewing this thread.
The only flaw is that perhaps walkers shouldn't be tolerated. At the old Fukuoka marathon you would be out of the race if you fell of 2:50 pace. Boston shouldn't be that extreme but like, who signs up with the intention of walking?
I know this is the general ethos is marketing, but a company like Nike actually does care what you think. Which is why I think this ad is a little strange for them. They clearly have moved away from any sort of elitist positioning of the brand, probably to their detriment, at least for many of us around here that view them more of an Athleisure company than a legitimate sports equipment/apparel company at this point. But I'm not sure if denigrating (if you can really call this ad that) other people is the way to improve that image. Does this ad move the needle for anyone in believing Nike is now back to committing to making the best products who take running seriously? I doubt that it does.
For the record, I think getting bent out of shape about any of these ads, including recently the Sydney Sweeney fiasco, is stupid. I personally couldn't care less who gets offended. But take that out of it, is it a effective ad given the company has serious work to do to bring back buyers like us? And I'm not sure it is.
Nike has been athleisure for decades now.
They are still at the top in running - they make the only 5k/10k road shoe on the market (streakfly 2), the second best super shoe (vaporfly whatever number they are at), best race shorts (aeroswift 2"), best spikes (you could debate this one I guess).
Ya, but they aren't marketing like they're trying to be the best - other than the recent Fiath and Jakob lines, I guess. They are just marketing as good products, with the strategy of sponsoring half the field at global championships.
This ad doesn't sell anything, but it gets us talking about nike. Its a single piece in an advertising campaign - and your browser/socials will spit other nike ads at you after viewing this thread.