The latest Nike commercial featuring Tiger Woods with his Dad‘s voice over falls flat with viewers. Sure, there is lots of interest in anything Tiger but did this ad advance either Nike‘s or Woods‘s cause? The numbers say no.
This morning I heard Donny Deutsh gush about the ad‘s brilliance on The Today Show. But as many “experts” usually do, he posited his preferences for risky ads on the consuming public. The bottom line is that the numbers in HCD‘s advertising test posted on Mediacurves on April 8 suggest that the ad didn‘t help either brand…Woods or Nike.
Linking a consumer brand to an ad chastising Woods, the face of the brand, is risky. If Nike sold responsibility that would be more acceptable but I don‘t believe that responsibility and footwear necessarily are connected in the mind of the consumer. The most frequently mentioned emotion by viewers of this ad was “confusion”. Not a surprise when trying to link this ad to sneakers.
コメント