Eliud Kipchoge ran 2:00:25 in his marathon attempt Italy. The problem for the Nike marketing guys? The clock only showed 2:00:23 when he crossed the line.
So what did they or the PR firm do? Photoshop in the proper time.
More here:
Eliud Kipchoge ran 2:00:25 in his marathon attempt Italy. The problem for the Nike marketing guys? The clock only showed 2:00:23 when he crossed the line.
So what did they or the PR firm do? Photoshop in the proper time.
More here:
I'm still waiting for the strava activity to be posted, or it didn't happen
That's exactly what I would expect them to do and what they ought to do if they have any business sense. What is so hilarious about it?
Would have been bad if he ran 2:00:01 and the clock said 1:59:59
I clicked expecting to see it read 1:59:59 or something. So, they photoshopped the truth onto something?
The actual problem is how race clocks are a few seconds off of the actual finish time. I almost never see a marathon winner cross the finish line without the 'official' winning time being a few seconds slower.
Actually Kipchoge ran a 2:04.25 marathon. Nike just adjusted the clocks and the filming speed to shave off 4 minutes. Something went wrong, however, so the clock at the finish line wasn't properly synchronized with the rest. Fortunately, Nike could use Photoshop to fix their fix.
LetsRun.com wrote:
Eliud Kipchoge ran 2:00:25 in his marathon attempt Italy. The problem for the Nike marketing guys? The clock only showed 2:00:23 when he crossed the line.
So what did they or the PR firm do? Photoshop in the proper time.
More here:
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/05/nike-pr-firm-altered-time-clock-eliud-kipchoge-breaking2-finishline-photo/
I would expect them (or anyone) to do that.
Loin Heart wrote:
LetsRun.com wrote:Eliud Kipchoge ran 2:00:25 in his marathon attempt Italy. The problem for the Nike marketing guys? The clock only showed 2:00:23 when he crossed the line.
So what did they or the PR firm do? Photoshop in the proper time.
More here:
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/05/nike-pr-firm-altered-time-clock-eliud-kipchoge-breaking2-finishline-photo/I would expect them (or anyone) to do that.
+1. I don't particularly like Nike, definitely don't like Salazar, and think that this is the lamest "story" I've ever seen written on here.
They wanted to show the actual result time? No shit guys.
Clam Evans wrote:
Would have been bad if he ran 2:00:01 and the clock said 1:59:59
Ha that photo would have been everywhere unaltered.
george oscar bluth wrote:
That's exactly what I would expect them to do and what they ought to do if they have any business sense. What is so hilarious about it?
You can't photoshop photos you send out to the media pretending they are editorial shots. It's just bad form. In a marketing world sure everything lines up, but sometimes in a real world it doesn't. Reason I noticed the photoshopping was because I didn't like how the photos we had had 2:00:23. It bugged me. I now see what the top marketer in the world does in that case - change reality.
I don't believe it to be in poor form at all, and I think writing a story about it is lame. Agree to disagree.
Peepsy wrote:
I clicked expecting to see it read 1:59:59 or something. So, they photoshopped the truth onto something?
The actual problem is how race clocks are a few seconds off of the actual finish time. I almost never see a marathon winner cross the finish line without the 'official' winning time being a few seconds slower.
Did you mean a few seconds shorter?
george oscar bluth wrote:
I don't believe it to be in poor form at all, and I think writing a story about it is lame. Agree to disagree.
Agreed. I mean I understand why the brojos might not like that they photoshopped the right time in, but this is not "worth a laugh". Yawn.
Yes it is worth a laugh ...
that Letsrun makes a thread about this.
This is a pretty dumb thing to write an article about. Not worth a laugh.
wejo wrote:
Clam Evans wrote:Would have been bad if he ran 2:00:01 and the clock said 1:59:59
Ha that photo would have been everywhere unaltered.
george oscar bluth wrote:
That's exactly what I would expect them to do and what they ought to do if they have any business sense. What is so hilarious about it?
You can't photoshop photos you send out to the media pretending they are editorial shots. It's just bad form. In a marketing world sure everything lines up, but sometimes in a real world it doesn't. Reason I noticed the photoshopping was because I didn't like how the photos we had had 2:00:23. It bugged me. I now see what the top marketer in the world does in that case - change reality.
You and your brother are the last bunch that should be pointing out "bad form".
Not sure I understand where LRC is going with this. Has there ever been a FAT time that agreed with the running time on a scoreboard? Every photo of an athlete posing with a record time is, in a way, editing the running time to reflect the FAT time. Is it not?
Maybe you guys could spend your considerable resources to see if anyone else adjusted the displayed time of an athlete crossing the finish line to the official time - I'm guessing it's most marathons, at least. If I was a race director I wouldn't want photos of last year's champion showing a time faster than his official time.
Jefe in the CO wrote:
Not sure I understand where LRC is going with this. Has there ever been a FAT time that agreed with the running time on a scoreboard? Every photo of an athlete posing with a record time is, in a way, editing the running time to reflect the FAT time. Is it not?
Maybe you guys could spend your considerable resources to see if anyone else adjusted the displayed time of an athlete crossing the finish line to the official time - I'm guessing it's most marathons, at least. If I was a race director I wouldn't want photos of last year's champion showing a time faster than his official time.
This is normal. The letsrun brothers got worked up about it when Berlin did it for Haile's 2:03:59. I guess they have short memories.
Still trying to beat this thing down, eh? First your sh*try tweet, now this. They made the clock MORE accurate! They're not trying to lie. You, on the other hand, look like a total douche for the second time this week.
This is a great catch and definitely merited an article.
This is the biggest non-story I have ever seen.