let me say this about that

a place to contemplate, cogitate, and concentrate

5.31.2007

run how you want to run

so i have finally come to a mental verdict on these new reebok (sorry, RBK) ads targeting the casual runner. if you live in or near a metro area you've probably seen them around public transit areas - they try to appeal to the healthy (but not necessarily fit) individual who wants to run to maintain a feeling of a healthy lifestyle. RBK targets this group at the emotional (and physical, for those who've endured it) expense of the supposed uber-runner who goes too far in her physical pursuits to achieve "excellence."

i haven't gone through RBK's market research on the topic, but i do know that they've long lost the battle for the serious runner to nike, saucony, and asics (click here for my personal fav running shoe). while each of these companies maunfactures one or more shoe brands for non-competitive runners (remember the evolution of "tennis shoes" to "running shoes"?), no company has attempted to use media to affiliate itself so closely with that group as RBK is doing now.

the print ads stand in what i think is fairly dramatic contrast to the web campaign, which takes a much more lighthearted, personable approach to "Run Easy." Check it out on the RBK Website.

the big issue that i have with the campaign, then, is its inconsistency. on one had they're showing casual runners what not to become by highlighting images of failed attempts to achieve true athletic greatness (marathon, for example), but then they're showing Allen Iverson (who I'm pretty sure is not a casual athlete) out jogging. also, the actors in the web ad are in pretty damn good shape. i have no doubt that any one of them could run a marathon after completing a standard training regimen (like this one). it's textbook product marketing to show the consumer an aspirational version of himself interacting with the brand, but i'm not buying the degree of spectrum RBK is trying to play on (from "that girl who runs 10 minute miles" to Allen Iverson).

i think RBK can get away with demonstrating athletic failure because the casual athlete's impression of what that failure must feel like is nothing like the actual feeling. if you fall down and can't run anymore in mile 25 of a marathon, odds are you've run 325+ miles training for that run, and you've experienced all kinds of pains - physical (knees, feet, back, legs) and mental (i am so tired and i still have 7 miles left and it's 90 degrees out here and i don't know where the next water fountain is). doing good long-term training sets you up to deal with, and overcome, obstacles like RBK is showing here. a casual athlete would not encounter this and can therefore be appropriately scared off by the image of the fallen would-be hero.

don't get me wrong, i am not all that great of an athlete, but i know a bunch of people who are. the problem RBK's trying to solve is a tough one - neither the "2 miles 3 times a week" guy or the marathon-every-month gal is using its shoes, and it's stuck in the middle of low-end and high-end in the minds of athletes nowadays (save for basketball, which is all tied to individual spokesperson athletes).

my personal favorite is this one, which contains a not-so-subtle dig on the swoosh:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home