1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A bad Nike commercial on so many levels

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Drip, Apr 8, 2010.

Page 8 of 8
  1. proudpittsburgher

    proudpittsburgher Guest

    And, in all likelihood, it's what Tiger is actually thinking. It may be the closest spot to the truth there is.
     
    proudpittsburgher, Apr 9, 2010
    #85
  2. Den1983

    Den1983 Active Member

    I think it was well understood it was taken out of context. I mean, the guy's been dead for awhile.

    I still think the commercial is powerful, and like it or not, it gets people talking about Nike and Tiger, which is exactly the point.
     
    Den1983, Apr 9, 2010
    #86
  3. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    I at least expected Earl to be talking about Tiger in that bite. And the sound starts off with Earl saying, "Tiger," which was audio "borrowed" from somewhere else. Dishonest, disingenuous, distasteful.

    But I guess the sales figures will tell the final story, won't they?
     
    Lugnuts, Apr 9, 2010
    #87
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    THAT'S what makes it dishonest, disingenuous and distasteful for you? Earl Woods is dead. No matter how the audio was cobbled together, it was "borrowed" from somewhere else, as you put it. Out of all the things to be critical about, what difference does it make if Earl Woods was talking about his son, his wife or Fred Flintstone in the original recording(s), when anyone watching the commercial knows he was talking about something OTHER than his son's current problems when the recording(s) were made? THAT is the dishonest, disingenuous and distasteful part to me. Tiger Woods, in his quest for a buck, allowed a shoe company to use audio of his dead dad out of its original context, to try to capitalize on a self-created scandal. It's creepy.
     
    The Big Ragu, Apr 9, 2010
    #88
  5. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    No - you're right - I hated the ad before I knew where they got the audio. It's all distasteful.

    I guess, though....... As a TV person and someone who has edited for 15 years, I know what I can and can't do to let me sleep at night.

    I don't have qualms editing 17 "umms" out of a 30 second soundbite so that a person who isn't an idiot doesn't look like one.

    I would have a problem tacking a "Tiger?" onto a bite that had nothing to do with Tiger.

    It's an ad-- not journalism-- I get that. I just have a hard time going against what's been ingrained in me.
     
    Lugnuts, Apr 9, 2010
    #89
  6. Drip

    Drip Active Member

    You hit that one on the head Rags. I agree WFW.
     
    Drip, Apr 10, 2010
    #90
  7. pride of pleasantville

    pride of pleasantville Guest

    I agree. The idea of the ad was to get people talking, and they succeed in that aspect. I do not like the ad but do not think it is bad, because it worked.
     
    pride of pleasantville, Apr 10, 2010
    #91
Page 8 of 8
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page