Ah, touche. Whatever you call it, I suppose what I disagreed with in the first place is your insinuation that being an official sponsor is somehow a morally superior position for a brand. And that the money paid by such official sponsors, like Adidas, helps the game any more than Nike's "terrible interloping" of sponsoring players and teams. My point is/was, it all comes down to six of one, half dozen of the other. I've still yet to hear/read how being any official sponsor helps the sport anymore than what Nike does.
Anyway, a pleasure politely disagreeing with you, good sir. I'm off to get booze for this afternoon's Germany/Australia match.. cheers
Ugh. No, making a TV commercial starring sports folk you pay to wear your stuff is not ambush marketing. Even if you put an extended version online.
And yes, you did bring up Adidas by association when you suggested they as an official sponsor were giving more "to the game" by ponying up for FIFA. if that's the case, I'd be interested to hear just how that is.
I suppose I should've just saved a lot of word and simply said, I disagree.
Well, no I wasn't suggesting that. Simply trying to point out that if we're going to pull our our moral measuring tapes, we'd be splitting hairs talking about Nike, FIFA, Adidas, Coke, or any other corporate sponsor.
Also, Nike's "ambush marketing activities"? Please. Like what, Sponsoring and outfitting half the teams in the tournament? Quite the ambush there. You didn't happen to mention what makes Adidas so much holier for ponying up the "official" sponsor cash to FIFA.
Point is, either way, neither's involvement in soccer, from a marketing POV is particularly vicious (manufacturing standards notwithstanding). they simply choose to spend their budget in different ways. One pays to be an official sponsor (Adidas) which gives them first refusal of exclusive ad time on worldwide TV feeds. The other, made a six minute long commercial hoping it would go viral, side-stepping TV for the most part. It happened to work. Not vicious. Not ambush. Just two standard practices used by two different brands.
As for "something for nothing," I'd say the amount of money Nike's poured into those teams is pretty significant and gives them the right to use the likeness of their sponsored players and teams in their marketing.
I'm not trying to defend Nike, just think you're delusional if you think any of the corporations who opened their wallets to FIFA are somehow morally superior to the swoosh.
haha, Nice try Abe... since when is FIFA not a corrupt, money-grubbing organization a la IOC? And how, exactly, is Adidas any better than Nike just because they decided to shell out the "official" sponsor cash? Exactly.
FINALLY, the I'm-American-And-Don't-Get-the World-Cup article I've been waiting for. Oh wait, what?
At least this one, unlike the other thousandmillion every four years, delved ever so gingerly into the gross corporate profiteering that plagues modern sportZZZzzzzz...
We all know why Copyranter digs Ovechkin more... his advertising skills...
Hasn't there always been a line between the more academic (read: pricey/snobby) j-schools and the ones that treat the job as it should be -- as a trade?
J-schools that have taken the trade school approach aren't completely useless (hey, one helped me and i gots a job) because they tend to bypass all the ego-boosting theoretical dung and teach stuff like how to write a proper f*cking nut graf.. sure, you could figure that on your own with some time and few mag subs, but if you're not all that disciplined and a bit cluless and the school's a decent price and teaches by "doing," then there may be still a place for such programs... or not! internet!
think it's "whisky" in this case.. scottish and all.. yes. booze nerd.
"You did not ask to be white. So perhaps that is not your fault. You did not ask to be here. Perhaps that is not your fault, either." Chiun rules. I like to purchase things.