Ad: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2630928091_2664e45f96.jpg?v=0
Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_bi_ge/nike_advertisement
The ad shows a basketball player jumping up for a slam dunk while his crotch simultaneously slams into the opponents face, followed by the tagline "That Ain't Right."
From the article:
"Earlier, Nike had said the ads were 'based purely upon a common insight from within the game of basketball -- the athletic feat of dunking on the opposition, and is not intended to be offensive.'"
*Cough bullshit cough.* There is no way they are gonna try and tell me that it was just so obvious that they were refering to the dunk. I'm not buying it. I do believe, however, that they were trying to create a double meaning so they could use the "oh we didn't mean it like that, you're just misinterpreting" excuse.
While I'm glad Nike had the brains to pull the ad, what bothers me is that many people are still defending it. When I first heard about it on the radio this morning, the DJ's were saying that it was really obvious that the ad was refering to how high he jumped. That's funny because Nike claimed it was obviously about the fact that he was dunking. I guess it's not so clear afterall, is it?
Having said all this, I do appreciate the fact that Nike took the ad down, even though it should have never been there in the first place.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Nike Pulls Homophobic Commercial.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8212
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I noticed that a lot of web commenters do not defend the ad as much as they outright attack folks' right to question the ad in the first place.
Lots of comments about people being too sensitive and claims that "everyone always has to have an issue with something" are being thrown around out there.
I wonder how much Nike is paying these people?
I personally feel the image is fine for an ad, seeing as in basketball and any other sport where jump height is an asset, the picture itself represents bring your crotch to someone else's head height which is undoubtedly an impressive physical/athletic feat.
However, it is the text that I feel makes it distasteful. If they had found a way to more strongly emphasize the athleticism involved, then it'd be fine.
Also; I find it bizarre that you're making a strong distinction between jumping really high and dunking. Unless you're able to simply reach above the 10 foot rim, a dunk requires a rather large jump.
Just some minor nitpicking, but I agree; the ad as it was should not have been in the first place.
Jenga,
You're right that a dunk requires a jump, I never denied that it did. But the article, or atleast how I interpreted it, was stating that the mere fact that he was dunking his opponent "aint right" while the people I heard on the radio specifically referred to the fact that he jumped that high. I know it's a small detail, but I was just trying to make the point that there was not unanimous agreement on what the article was referring to.