Source: Washington Post
POSTED BY Kaylon Kirk on Thursday, February 14, 2013.
-South African double-amputee and Olympic medalist Oscar Pistorius, in an online Nike ad, which was removed from the internet after the track star was charged with the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.
Source: Washington Post POSTED BY Kaylon Kirk on Thursday, February 14, 2013.
9 Comments
2/17/2013 12:09:30 am
I read about this incident the day it happened, Pistorius had become a hero in terms of all he has accomplished in the athletic world.But after the wake of allegations that Pistorius killed his girlfriend, the olympian amputee has lost a great deal of respect. South Africa is a dangerous place to live and in an interview with Pistorius he admitted to having several weapons in his house--all for self protection. The court hasn't ruled anything of yet, and neither should we the public. Pistorius made it very clear that he would like to send his deepest sympathies to the family of Reeva (his late girlfriend). The biggest problem with this case is the way his sponsor NIKE handled it, NIKE took down the images of Pistorius on his website and to make matters worse other NIKE ads featuring Pistorius have included similar language invoking images of violence. The worst being Pistorius alongside text that reads, "this is my weapon" clearly meaning his prosthetic legs, yet NIKE making it seem like something else. Issues like this are private and no judgements should be passed until we know the full truth.
Rachael Meleney
2/21/2013 07:38:31 am
Regardless of the turn out of this tragic case, NIKE should not have run those ads in the first place, even before this incident occurred. With all of the campaign possibilities for a double-amputee Olympic medalist, which was such an inspiring story in sports, NIKE chose to resort to images and text "invoking violence". What is the need for more violence in the world? NIKE could have used Pistorius's story in a much more positive and encouraging light, especially for the benefit of younger audiences of the NIKE product, and children, disabled or otherwise, who look up to Pistorius for his accomplishments. Now the ads are just an embarrassment, and certainly do nothing for NIKE's image, let alone Pistorius'. That was a poor move from the start on NIKE's part.
Alexandra Arey
4/18/2013 08:48:54 am
I agree with you. It's incredibly ironic that the images and text used in the ad pertained to guns since he was charged with shooting his girlfriend. Even had the crime not been committed, NIKE could have utilized his disability to send an inspiring message in a different, more appropriate fashion. I agree in that it was a poor decision from the start and shows little tact on NIKE's part. A message doesn't need to be violent, or have violent connotations, to be powerful. It's important to remember that NIKE has such a broad consumer base and its ads should be tailored more delicately so they are appropriate for all audiences and able to face any unexpected repercussions.
Juliana Semerene
2/22/2013 02:36:20 am
The media and advertising is in part to blame for the response to situations like this because of their portrayal of Pistorius and other other athletes in general. The media and corporations such as NIKE too frequently heroize athletes for selfish reasons like the sake of companies profits, building consumer interest, PR campaigns, etc. Yes, it is the essence of business- a company needs to give a consumer reason to like/need/consume something, however it is crucial to remember that these "heroes" in the sports world, are also human. Athletes do have the burden of being role models to others around the world due to their fame, though this does not mean that because they have accomplished a great athletic achievement that they are inherently perfect humans in all aspects of life. The ad itself was not entirely a mistake by NIKE because before the murder, there was no issue with the ad. The problem lies in the fact that advertisers build their campaigns around a human being. Regardless of their talent, achievements, etc., these athletes are ultimately still human and society (especially advertisers and media) cannot hold a person, no matter how incredible they may seem, to the standard of a superhero. We are humans not heroes, and no advertisement or PR campaign in the universe will ever be able to change that fundamental part of any given person in society. 2/24/2013 11:06:05 pm
NIKE had no way of predicting Pistorius's behavior when they created the advertisements. They were part of a publicity campaign that was completely independent from the recent events surrounding the athlete. In addition, Pistorius has not been convicted yet and pulling the ads could be interpreted as NIKE's opinion on the matter. However, that being said, this will be a valuable lesson for NIKE's advertising team. It's important to consider the implications of associating a public figure with a message that carries a double meaning, intentional or not. Especially in recent times, guns have been a hot and controversial topic. It would be smart for NIKE to avoid sensitive subjects that might pull focus away from the intended message in the future.
Chris Conway
4/23/2013 01:08:10 pm
Of course, as others have commented on this thread, Nike had no way of knowing what would happen in Pistorius' life shortly after the publication of this quote. In fact, some might think this is good, creative copywriting. It conjures the image of Pistorius as a "loaded gun", ready to explode into action. It's a common image in racing- the starting gun, quick starts, explosive movement. On the face of it, there's no problem with conjuring that imagery. The underlying messages it sends are very conflicted, yes, but I understand the intended message here to be that Pistorius is a very good, very fast, very explosive athlete that endorses the Nike brand. Nike was correct in removing the ad after what happened, though. The events with Pistorius and his girlfriend took this completely off message. If Nike wanted to stay on message, they should have removed the ad - which they did - and replaced Pistorius with another athlete and changed the wording completely. There's a double meaning here, but I think what Nike was trying to do stayed on message until the events in Pistorius' life threw it off. I don't think there was anything inherently confusing or off message with the original copy.
Moriah Glenn
4/24/2013 03:22:11 am
I think it's important to ask ourselves the question of if the allegations against Pistorius would have never happened, would we still think that Nike was wrong to run the ad "invoking violence". I know this is a touchy subject, but like a former comment said, this kind of imagery and language is common in racing and Nike had no way to predict what would happen in the future. The one thing I do think Nike did wrong was immediately take down the ads because it's kind of like admitting that they did something wrong. Regardless of what happened or happens, Nike or any other company has no way to predict what a celebrity will do in the future. I don't think there was anything wrong about Nike's ad. 7/2/2013 01:51:55 pm
Athletes do have accomplished a great athletic achievement that they are inherently perfect humans in all aspects of life. Leave a Reply. |