Hyperizin'

The sad part about the ad  - another gem from the collaboration of Wieden + Kennedy and Nike - you're about to see is that Mo Williams, Rashard Lewis, Kevin Durant and Andre Iguodala rhyme better than more of these clowns in rap right now.



Actually, DJ Quik (the producer extraordinaire) should go ahead and just release a supergroup album with these four right now. After all, it's hard to imagine that a few rhyming athletes can't do better than this:



Props to those who recommended, Twittered and uploaded for a small screen embedding purposes. And can anyone in sports advertising challenge the supremacy of W + K and Nike?

Spot

Since this is getaway day (or night) for many of you, here's a quick question: what is your favorite sports-related spot/ad/commercial so far this year?

I ask this because I was reading about the NFL's new campaign to take over our minds, bodies and souls. Here in the New York Times, representatives of both the league and Grey New York (the agency of record for the league) explain the thinking behind these new commercials.

As mentioned earlier this year in a post called Fluid, I was fascinated by a Jumpman ad that starred Richard Hamilton, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul and Joe Johnson. There are others of course, but none that have stuck out of the crowd as 'Field Generals'.



Well, except for this... well, I'll be fair and say that both Johan Santana and CC Sabathia did their best.



Say What?!?!: Still feeling my way through Twitter, I haven't picked up on Follow Friday just yet. However, I recommend that you all check out the Norman Einsteins, an online monthly magazine from Cian O'Day. It takes a unique look into sports with various writers and photographers. I am looking forward to doing some work for the site in the future, but here is this month's edition. Enjoy yourselves.

Conscious

If ‘going green’ sounds like a marketing ploy to you rather than some genuine effort by a business to become more environmentally responsible, then you are certainly among millions of skeptics.

In this week’s BusinessWeek, Reena Jana discussed Nike’s recent attempts at becoming eco-friendly. Four years ago, the iconic sneaker company sold a line of boots called “Considered” that were made from brown hemp fibers, but they did not sell very well. Purveryors felt that the design and quality were compromised for the sake of joining the eco-conscious party.

Essentially having tucked its tail between its legs after “Considered”, Nike took a different course in releasing its latest products. As Jana explains;

The lesson for Nike was that its green innovations should continue, but its customers shouldn't be able to tell. "We want to do more and say less," is the way Lorrie Vogel, who oversees Nike's green business practices, puts it. The company also has to be careful about promoting itself as socially responsible because of its past use of sweatshop labor in Asian factories.

This article struck the fancy for a few reasons. For starters, it’s not hard to fathom that the quality of the shoes have improved from a few years ago. In fact, even the production of the latest Air Jordans (XX3) falls more in line with this new philosophy as Jana mentions the “jigsaw puzzle” design. Yet since this Scribe hasn’t had the callback from any of the NBA teams about a Summer League tryout, it’s hard to determine the nuances between a traditional make and the eco-shoe as an athlete.

Secondly, the silent treatment is an interesting approach. While Nike is conscious of another potential public relations disaster, it appears that they are also taking the adage, “don’t talk about it, be about it”, to heart. In order for Nike’s green efforts to be taken seriously, it seems that it has to be taken for granted by its consumers. Sure, other companies may have good reason to tout their eco-friendly practices in the face of some cynics, but those efforts still feel like bandwagon-jumping.

Mostly, a green Nike conjured up thoughts of a presentation I had done while in college about the company. For the Management Communications course taken in 2004 (senior year), each student had to profile a company in a ten-minute oral and visual presentation with a question-and-answer session to follow. The company needed to be embroiled in some ongoing controversy – an example being a firm emerging from the fraud scandals of the earlier part of the decade – and the student needed to convince classmates (deemed the shareholders of said firm) that investing in the company was still a worthwhile proposition.

I chose Nike because I had just finished reading Naomi Klein’s No Logo, a book where the Canadian journalist and activist railed on several global corporations for exploitative practices such as moving factories overseas where an abundance of cheap labor awaited their arrival. (If the book sounds familiar to those who have followed Scribe over the past two years, it should as it was sourced here before.) The book gained popularity (and infamy) for assailing Nike for its use of sweatshops and the company’s tit-for-tat retort for all of Klein’s accusations. While I did not agree with every word in No Logo, the topic was familiar enough that attempting to convince my peers that Nike was worth the investment because of an influx of new athletes to endorse the products such as Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, Dwayne Wade (for Converse, which Nike just purchased at the time).

Without getting into details I can’t exactly remember, the presentation and Q&A was a success. Yet, after fast forwarding to the current realities of our world and our greater awareness of the company’s past, I wonder how successful Nike will be in not only selling these new products, but in changing its perception as an irresponsible corporation. How can a game-changing innovation convince people that this is a new day and age for a brand when it won’t promote the innovation itself? Better yet, does Nike even want to reshape its public image if it’s still selling Jordans, LeBrons and Kobes despite dour times?

Thoughts?

Oops...

This may seem... well, just plain wrong, but doesn't the now-shuttered Kobe versus LeBron push feel more this:



For those of you who refuse to relieve much of the early nineties, Reebok launched a campaign featuring two relative unknowns in the mainstream sports world, decathletes Dan O'Brien and Dave Johnson, as a part of hyping up their potential showdown in the Barcelona Olympics. What started as a "who the heck are these guys" during Washington's thrashing of the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXVI grew into the second-most talked about event in the States for those 1992 Summer Olympics (next to the greatest team ever assembled).

Of course, as fate would have it, there was no event to speak of.

O'Brien didn't qualify for the US Olympic Team (watching those trials live must have been painful for the Canton, MA-based sneaker company) and neither competed in the same events again.

As much as Reebok thought that Dan versus Dave was a sure thing, there was too much time between the campaign launch that January and the Games that summer for there not to have been a stumbling block. While O'Brien's shortfall came at the pole vault, the wrenches in the plans could have been anything from injury to the emergence of a stronger contender. Reebok may have sold a few more sneakers and Johnson was still able to capture a Bronze medal, but as mentioned in this morning's post, putting the cart before the horse is a very dangerous proposition in a field where prognositcations and performance differ drastically.

Fast forward to 2009 where some are pondering the question, "what will happen to the puppets?"

Actually, that's a pretty good question.

Big ups to bostonnewsarchives for the video.

Stereotypes (I)

Just watch and respond.



Honestly, anyone who is offended by this desperately needs a sense of humor to go with their moral indignation.

Well done, Nike.

Getaway

It's vacation time... finally.

Well, it's vacation away from the fulltime job, that is. Never ever A Sports Scribe.

Outside of Props on Wednesday, I can't guarantee when some work will be added to Scribe this week. However, my hopes are to experience the sports buzz of an area I have yet to thoroughly enjoy in quite some time. I think the tenor may be down a bit based on today's action, yet being that there is plenty to talk about from the region, I'd expect to speak with many fans and get a pulse on the sports media.

Maybe I'll get to a game there, if time allows. Even if this is the first vacation I've had in four years, how can I not try to find some sort of game?

Stay tuned. And vote on the poll.

By the way, if you're going to innudate us with commercials during our NFL and baseball playoff games, at least let them be good... like this one below.



Maybe the drinkability factor of Nike is fairly low, but the sensibility to entertain the viewer was rather high.

D'oh!

A month ago as discussed throughout the blogosphere (here included), Nike pulled ads were considered homophopic by the Human Rights Coalition. Though you'll still catch some the ads in some bus canopies and phone booths, the sneaker behemouth felt that keeping the campaign going was not worth another public relations nightmare as international labor law controversy still brews.

Now, their Converse division had to go even further by pulling actual product.

As reported today, the brand of Chuck Taylor and Dr. J decided to take these sneakers off of the shelves because of an investigation by Baltimore's ABC affiliate station.

 

These sneakers come in only two colors (red and blue) and adorn bandanas. The investigation tipped its hand in saying that the sneakers were targeted towards gang members, most notably the Bloods and Crips.

Converse might as well have painted a red-and-blue target on their headquarters.

It's very easy to call this an overreaction by the company; an action thatcould not only hurts the bottom line for a brief moment, but shows that "professional offenders" wield an extraordinary power and can pick off anyone at will. Whether it's an organization or in this case, a media outlet, if someone has a pressing issue that resonates with a significant group of people along with a loud enough voice, they can force an actual change in Corporate America.

That said, a few people in the design, marketing, research & development and public relations departments must have thought that no one would have made the connection. While it's hard to really believe that a shoe company would overtly target groups of illegal activity to pedal some kicks, to come to this point means that they underestimated the issues of gang activity in many communities and the marketing awareness of consumers. After all, despite the fact that these sneakers were intended to be 'feminine and playful', rolling out two styles in these colors - for better or worse - will set off the minds of concerned parents whose kids are at least in plain view of these gangs.

Maybe they should swap emails with executives at New Era and Major League Baseball as they have been dealing with a similar issue: various gangs adopting sports insignia and/or wearing certain color caps to rep their sets.

Or maybe out of spite, they'll end up creating entire outfits tailor-made for gangbangers.

OOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

This is what happens when your professional life is a confluence of sports, media and advertising.



Recently, Creativity Online – a portal in Advertising Age that gives subscribers a chance to preview and judge advertisements in the various mediums – profiled a Nike ad that the company recalled because of anti-gay claims. While there has been more news about the pulling of the ads than the ads themselves, Creativity asks people who tend to be decision-makers about the kinds of images they need and want to project for their clients.



The campaign, which promotes the latest editions of its Hyperdunk line, shows ballplayers in some in-game snapshots. Yet, these aren’t your run-of-the-mill, let’s-see-him-dribble-in-front-of-the-camera shots.

If you’ve seen the ads, the first thought that could have come to mind may be something like this:

Yet, some see this:

Talking with SPJ about the ads this evening, we couldn't exactly understand the uproar and reason to pull the ad. At least, not based on how we know the game of hoop.



Anyone who has at least watched, if not played, basketball has witnessed  as the one pictured: a dunk so ferocious and so - with apologies to the English language - ridonculous that even James Naismith would C-walk along the sidelines in celebration of what just happened. Anyone who has played the game more than once has a) posterized someone that exact way and/or b) been posterized that exact way.



Even if they were on the monkey bars in the projects as I used to back in the mid-nineties.



If you've played the game before - especially the flashy, in-your-face, aggressive streetball - and you saw that poster, you probably smiled, laughed or said "damn... that really ain't right!" because you know that it's part of the game.



Yet, I can understand how it could be perceived to be homophobic. Once the quotes were added to the photo, the prints were open for various interpretation. The center of the poster's action combined with a shaking-my-head-like quote can be viewed as a condemnation of an intimate act between gay men.



I can imagine that as the Human Rights Coalition (the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender lobby group that pressured Nike) were talking with company executives, the sneaker pushers were trying to bring home the point of how their pictures were reflecting a part of the game of basketball. Obviously, the decision to pull the ads was out of fears of further upsetting those who shunned the campaign.



The agency that came up with the campaign, Wieden+Kennedy, has to wonder if they didn't test their work properly or if it really is an overraction by people who get offended for a living.



So, what do you see from the ad?

100/Bionic

One hundred entries.

53 “full length” or "orginal thought" posts.

47 short, anecdotal posts.

405 labels.

Posts referring or discussing the social implications of sports.

Posts referring or discussing the business of sports.

Posts referring or discussing the sublime, ridiculous, funny, “oh snap!” or “WHAT?!?!” of sports.

Zero posts discussing an actual game.

Far from perfection and even further from teeming masses of readers, but Scribe is a constant work in progress.

The idea from the start has been to take the politics, business and perception of sports as a whole away from the actual game play in order for us to appreciate or at least understand the games a little bit more. Though broader appeal is what all media participants seek, yet from first glance, it's not hard to tell that Scribe isn't for everybody... right now. Scribe has leaps and bounds to go in achieving the tasks at hand, but it has been an interesting journey to one hundred entries.

Sure, many bloggers and writers with blogs (there is a difference) have reached one hundred within two months. Yet there are many more who just quit or are slowed in their progress. It’s a rather tough journey because blogging is still new, raw and unrefined by even the most successful participants. However, the hopes that existed when creating Scribe last May 15th are stronger than ever before. The hopes that you may be a little more cognizant of something in the sports world than you were yesterday. Hopes that this writer has learned more about how sports are viewed by fans, casuals, non-fans and observers (colleagues in media and advertising that may view this space). Hopes that collectively, we are slowly moving away from “he sucks”, “he’s overpaid” and “he has no heart”.

Many thanks for taking the journey, no matter which stop Scribe has picked you up from.

Next stop, swimwear on steroids?

In the latest edition of Business Week, Roger O. Crockett highlights claims made by companies the growing performance apparel industry. Crockett writes that though Under Armour blazed the trail in this market, larger apparel companies such as adidas and Nike have been able to challenge the Baltimore-based companies. This has gone beyond special undergarments to deflect sweat from athletes while performing. With major sneaker companies joining the fray and smaller, sport-specific outfits chipping away at the competition, it appears that there is a market war being waged to find out who provides athletes the greatest benefits.

Yet, according to the Business Week article, there are some claims that seem a little... enhanced.

What's legit and what's just hot air is a matter of just shelling out a few dollars more than normal for your necessary gear and try out these products.

Since the most athletic thing most folks do is sit up - okay, walk a little bit - we couldn't tell if there is truth or lies in the claims of these apparel makers. So for those of you that are runners, rec league superstars and gym rats, do you find that performance clothing actually helps in your sports and regimen?

Say What?!?!: Excuse the tone, but... damn.

Apolitical

In the February 25th edition of Advertising Age, the editorial delved into what may arguably become the most controversial issue outside of anything related to the Presidential elections. With the next installment of the Summer Olympics taking place in Beijing these summer, Big Business has either lined up or gearing to push for sponsorship opportunities in the seventeen-day event. As the days wind down, more and more activist groups are calling for these marketers to cease their efforts, suspend their campaigns and boycott the Olympics because of numerous human-rights violations. The most notorious of these violations, in the eyes of many, has been the relationship between the Chinese and Sudanese governments as the War in Darfur rages on.

Since Beijing was awarded the 29th Olympiad in 2001, activist groups have gone on the offensive against the Chinese government in hopes of either forcing it to relent to the global pressures or possibly disrupt the Games with politically-tinged demonstrations (or the most extreme option, terrorism). The Chinese are banking on this with increased monitoring of these groups through intelligence agencies, yet that is only one battle. Some public figures, ranging from politicians to the Washington Post’s editorial board, have called for boycotts. The most damning objection thus far seems to come from famed director Steven Spielberg, who stepped down as the artistic advisor for the Games after his own efforts – with external pressures placed on him – failed to prompt President Hu Jianto to act on the matter.

Spielberg’s statement may hold tremendous weight in Hollywood as talent and executives alike may follow suit. Yet, the world public – or at least the First World public – may view the latest collective of global activism with some skepticism. So you may ask yourself; if Big Business has gone full steam ahead towards the Opening Ceremonies and the Chinese government keeping an eye on dissenters, then what about the participants themselves?

Athletes, for better or worse, have been expected to speak out on what society at-large may feel is an injustice. It’s a daily struggle as even the so-called sacred ground of the field or court houses social discourse just by a ‘harmless’ fan sign. If asked which athlete was defined by a fearlessness to discuss something beyond the game, sports fans Stateside would give you Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown, Billie Jean King or Charles Barkley. Yet, this isn’t just an American phenomenon, but an international one as well.

Case in point; while Tiger Woods has been both praised and criticized for racial neutrality (or indifference), some of soccer/football’s biggest stars have responded to sickening antics across the globe by speaking out and campaigning for unity around the pitch.

As the days draw near, the expectations will only grow. They will grow not only because nearly every nation will send their best athletes, but because nearly every nation will infuse their dollars into the Chinese economy. The expectations will grow because all of the world’s superpowers are home to the highest-profile athletes; some who will descend onto Beijing for their homelands. The expectations will grow because many of these high-profile athletes are not only the best players, but the best pitchmen of Big Business in the world.

Of all teams headed to Beijing, the USA Men’s Senior Basketball team will have the largest spotlight at the Olympics based on the American clamor for a return to dominance. They will play to represent the States, yet their occupations as NBA players overshadow their national pride. Each of the players has some endorsement deal with a major sneaker company and a handful (Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwayne Wade) had or have deals with consumer brands such as T-Mobile and Sprite. These deals make them some of the most recognizable faces in the world. Yet, as if they won’t face enough scrutiny by American basketball fans and media, these deals also make them targets from activist groups who will impel them to respond and act.

It wasn’t long ago – last May, in fact - when current Seattle SuperSonics forward Ira Newble was gathering signatures for an open letter he wrote to the Chinese government on behalf of pro athletes. He was a teammate of James at the time and he was able to get the signature of almost all of his teammates. Two teammates declined, James and Damon Jones. Jones has a marketing deal with a Chinese shoemaker, Li-Ning Sports Goods Co. Ltd. Though it is a Chinese company, his refusal did not lend to as much criticism as James’ as Cavaliers’ leader is the signature current player on the Nike payroll. The $90 million deal he signed shortly before joining the NBA five years ago gives him a global reach, especially with the one billion pairs of feet in China. Whether it was fear of reprisal or alleged indifference is still difficult to determine nearly a year later. However, because of Nike’s business interest in the country coupled with the NBA’s presence, LeBron, Kobe and other members of Team USA won’t stop hearing the cries to take a stand – preferably a favorable stand for the activists.

Other athletes will receive backlash for an apathetic look towards China’s politics. Those who actually respond may be revered or reviled by fans and might very well be prepared for the tidal wave to hit. Yet, outside of American basketball players, one athlete in particular will feel even more pressure.

Yao Ming.

He is the most famous Chinese athlete in the world and now the world’s largest stage has been set up in his home country. He is also part of two worlds: his native land with its own values and a foreign land with a completely different set of rules. China may be slowly reshaping itself for an open economy, but there is still tremendous resistance within its own borders. Houston isn’t exactly Shanghai. Now that Yao has found a comfort zone in the States, he will certainly find himself in an unenviable position of being the Chinese voice to dissenters. He may not be able to play for his American employer, the Rockets, for the rest of the NBA season, but he hopes to be ready for the Games. Yao’s injury timeout is necessary for his return, but it may also become an opportunity for an increase in unsolicited requests.

Officially, China wants the world to focus on the Games as opposed to their international affairs. However, their government officials cannot and will not dismiss the history of the Olympics as the lone global political arena, rather, they expect it. As calls to compel Sudan into halting their attacks grow louder, it will be hard to ignore the realities surrounding the event. Big Business, for now, will push forward as planned. Politicians, entertainers and media will do their best to make their voices heard. Yet, there is no doubt that athletes as a whole are not as willing to share their opinions publicly out of concerns of losing prestige and respect. Between today and August 8th, an athlete of great standing may break the silence.

Or not.

Say What?!?!: Some have asked about thoughts on all sorts of recent socially-charged moments revolving around sports from the impending investigation regarding Roger Clemens to Kelly Tilghman's comment a short time ago (which only needed this Say What response). Scribe does share opinions on many sports topics, but not delving much on these weighty issues has a simple reason: there are many who articulate their thoughts on those matters and some who are quite masterful at it. There is, however, a desire to hear from those who are ardent fans and folks who marvel at our sports obesssions from afar. Just as every other post on this blog, your comments are always welcome, but in this particular post, your comments, questions and discussions amongst each other are highly recommended. Some of you have a particular insight on the War in Darfur that isn't reflected here and some have intimate knowledge - or at least awareness - of the vast differences between Chinese and American culture. Please forward this entry along to anyone with a particular interest (sports, business, politics, etc.).

$250

It's hard to forget the hoopla surrounding Cleveland Cavaliers star LeBron James' appearance in last year's ALDS. Proudly sporting his adoration to the New York Yankees with a team cap, he sat in the stands admist throngs of the Cleveland Indians faithful. Of course, he was railed on by local media (expected) as well as national sports pundits (unfortunately expected) because he is the epicenter of Ohio's sporting landscape.

He had always been a Yankees fan, as athletes around the globe still hold their allegiances for various sports and teams. His fandom wasn't going to change because he is now a professional athlete in a city whose sports doldrums are well chronicled. And why should it? After all, we're all fans, no matter what we do or where we relocate to.

Now, he's going to get it for sure.


Of course, this is a huge stylistic upgrade from the rest of his line. The sneaker, as you can see, screams Yankees, much to the chagrin of anyone who bleeds Cleveland sports or truly despises the Bronx Bombers. The sneaker (for the moment) is only available in the New York City area. Yet if the look of the sneaker or the initial lack of availability make fans cringe, just imagine when they see the price.

Not even in his playing prime did Michael Jordan hawk a $250 sneaker.

$250?!?!

Maybe Scribe thinks paying bills is a bit more important, but what are your thoughts on the new shoe?

*If the server hasn't crashed from thousands of hits and searches, look at Kix and the City.