I’ve never seen those “run easy” ads. When I think of Reebok marketing, I think of **Terry Tate: Office Linebacker ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0blnYGpvqs8
But, but…
My cake isn’t ready yet!
Jodi
At Boston one year, they were giving out DVD’s of those commercials replete with extra scenes. The thing was hysterical. I wish I knew what I did with that.
I’ll take a case, I hear this is a great year for “bottled asshole piss”
if you knew how to read (or took the time to do so), you’d notice that I said “I’m going to go try some on today”. And I did, and tried them on a treadmill and frankly I didn’t really like them. I still love the ad campaign.
not true about the racing flat…they have one for the new line.
Eric
You should try our new product, ‘Bottled Asshole Piss Endurance.’
PI does make some good cycling stuff. If only I could find a place that would let me try it for a few weeks and then return it if I didn’t like it.
The Reebok rep came to our local running store on group run night and put up all the Reebok “Run Easy” posters, gave out some stickers, gave out door prizes, had shoe demos and etc.
While we were out running, we all came to the conclusion that Reebok did not consult with any real runners when they settled with campaign. Even if you are the “run easy” type, you at least want to have the same apparel and shoes as the hard core folks.
It’s at least in part because their advertising sucks. When I think of Reebok, I still think of those horrible white leather (or fake leather) Reebok classics. That was an “athletic” shoe for grandmas (and before it starts, I don’t mean the triathlete grandmas who are about to jump down my throat here on ST!). This current ad campaign just reinforces that image - they’re telling people that exercise isn’t worth it if you have to try hard. C’MON! That’s just stupid, especially if you’re trying to get athletes to buy your products. “Run at the Speed of Chat” and “A 10 minute mile is just as far as a 6 minute mile” are training mantras for pssies.
Maybe Reebok realized that they’re never going to get the ‘serious’ ‘experienced’ runners (see elitist a-hole thread) to try their brand and their only chance is to tap into the vast sea of blubbery pssies out there… makes sense to me.
They could get that serious runner if they made good running shoes consistently with decent designs. Their latest is just more marketing-driven crap (a running shoe with that Pump thing in the heel. Stupid).
Ah, the power of the brand. I’ve seen the Pearl Izumi ad. It’s an interesting line to draw in the sand.
Essentially, advertising in publications like Triathlete fall into one of three categories:
- Brand – helping to establish the credibility/reason to “like” the brand
- Product – directly affecting perceptions of a specific product
- Retail – establishes a competitive offer for a specific product.
The PI ad is working on that first category. Let’s remember, people don’t buy products, they have relationships with brands. What is a brand that you like? It’s a brand that you relate to, that you perceive to hold the same values that you do. A triathlete walks into a bike store, and is told there are three different brands of bikes that are all in their price range, that all will pretty much fit them the same. Which do they choose? The bike they “feel” best about (they may ultimately find another way to rationalize it, but in essence that’s the subconscious workings).
The building of a brand isn’t just informed by advertising, it’s created by a myriad of other factors. Actual product delivery (if the ultimate product delivery falls down, all the other work is for naught), word of mouth (huge in the triathlon/running industry), the experience at the retail level, etc. But advertising can and does play a huge role. What PI’s done is to take their brand in one specific area (running) where they likely don’t have a lot of equity and say “Here. We stand for this.” It’s courageous (long copy ads can occasionally back fire), but it’s also pretty smart. I’d also argue that the forecasting of their demise amongst the less-than-hardore runners and triathletes is premature. Yes, they risk alienating some potential consumers, but what they’ve said is “you either are hardcore or you aren’t”. The great thing about self-perception is that we generally see ourselves the way we want to be seen, not how the world sees us. PI’s going to draw in a lot of the “jogger types” into their brand…because these people see themselves as hardcore runners, and not as the joggers they may actually be.
Brave brand move. I’d be interesting to track their sales in the next 12-18 months, and see the demographic changes (if any) too (things like average number of miles run per week, etc).
Oh trust me, I am well aware of the brand thing. I just find it so farking stupid that athletes fall for that stuff rather than being more scientific in their approach.
My brand for most things has been Nike simply because I did so many cases on them at Uni that I knew they did their science for most products. And because they fit better and lasted longer than the two other brands I tried. But no amount of advert kept me from moving to a better product (Newtons) when I found them.
“I just find it so farking stupid that athletes fall for that stuff rather than being more scientific in their approach.”
Interesting point. But when in the course of our scientific approach we realize that Brand X, Y, and Z are all roughly on par at the same pricepoint, to which brand do we gravitate? The one we “like” more.
Products are like people…we can find a thousand rational reasons why someone should be our friend, but in the end if you don’t click, it doesn’t work. Hear your point on the Newtons, though. I went through the same thing with my own runners recently, moving from a brand I had been with for 7+ years (and felt echoed some of my own athletic values) into a brand I never used, and doesn’t have well-defined brand equity. They simply fit better, and work better with my orthotics.
**But when in the course of our scientific approach we realize that Brand X, Y, and Z are all roughly on par at the same pricepoint, to which brand do we gravitate? The one we “like” more. **
I think that many people who buy running shoes aren’t real runners and are swayed purely by marketing/design. They may have college educations and because their primary reason for buying the shoe is not to run but to give other people an impression about them. Not smart. Drive through the housing projects and see how fast you loose count of the lux SUVs. Another example is the extra-metro looking old-fashioned looking running flats that seemed to be so fashionable about a year or two ago.
For real, actual runners like us, we need to be immune to this crap. Brand X, Y, and Z are rarely the same at the same at the same pricepoint. And if for some reason there actually are, the odds are there is a Brand W that is better than all three.
I also think that quality product actually trumps marketing in the long run. The better athletes want to win, they migrate to the better stuff, the masses follow.