Now I’m coming in way late on this — but I arrived late and only got the keys to the place a week ago tomorrow — so I’m going to go with this and then tell a bit of a story.
Now this ad actually debuted last November or so after two days of shooting of him tooling around in August — the thing is a lot of it is not branded at all (but for a short Nike Swoosh at the end) and basically shows what Steve does in his off-season (which is go around NYC — where he lives in the off-season for the past three years — occasionally shooting hoops — but a lot of it is actually time he spends playing soccer in various leagues around town. He could have been a pro soccer player as well — his brother actually plays professionally in Vancouver — but Steve ended up making millions playing in the NBA instead.)
“Nash produced the 81-second piece and is the first Nike major sports athlete to do so (skateboarding and BMX athletes get similarly involved). Nash wrote it, pitched it, hired the director (Lola Schmabel) and produced his first piece on a $30,000 budget during his stay in New York City last summer.
It is titled “Training Day.” It is a slice of a Nash day in New York. That includes skateboarding by the Brooklyn Bridge or on Wall Street as he turns heads. It shows him playing soccer on the roof of Pier 40 or in Chinatown, where he captured an elderly man’s pose.
The commercial does not hawk a product. Nike’s swoosh is not obvious until the closing shot of Nash lying on the 54th floor of the new 7 World Trade Center building.”
Now it is a really cool ad (and by the number of views on Youtube — more than 450,000 views on three entries — most seem to agree) but the major revelation for me is that Steve took complete control of it (after squashing a couple of agency ideas as not a good fit for what he was comfortable with doing) and the entire shoot cost under $30K . I know agencies where $30K doesn’t even you get an intern to come up with a treatment — well that is most agencies actually.
Do you figure W+K might be shitting themselves at the moment? Scratch that — there is probably not much reason for them to worry as most athletes have no desire to actually put more than minimum effort into turning out something for hawking a product.
Interesting bloody concept though — and I think more than a few agencies “dropped a deuce” worrying about it as a potential future…
His next effort drops April 22nd though — to coincide with “Earth Day” (he has a new shoe dubbed “The Nike Trash Talk” that is eco-friendly — having been made from recycled materials)
March 24, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Advertising Agencies should be creatively collaborating with the subjects of their advertising all the time. And if the subject is a product, then they should be collaborating with the people who came up with it. The ivory tower “I am the creative, you are all ants, let me sit in my office and play God” mentality needs to stop. As long as some ground rules are set beforehand, and everyone can play nice in the sandbox, the result will be much more honest and relevant concepts.
The best ad creatives are masters at creating compelling advertising but that does not mean they are masters at coming up with the best ideas, doing the best production, or being experts in the particular field they are advertising.
Steve Nash is an incredibly creative and intelligent person, as well as a passionate and gifted athlete, so i’m not surprised he was able to come up with good stuff. The spot gets “credibility” because he helped make it himself. Not sure that every athlete could do as well as he.
March 24, 2008 at 10:14 pm
True:
Another example is the Tiger Woods Nike spot from a couple of years ago where he spends 30 seconds bouncing a golf ball off his iron before smacking it a long distance.
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oTMosZ76b8
The story goes that it was actually done while they were on the set trying to film another treatment and the director saw Tiger doing “his trick” between takes to fight off boredom. (There is no CGI involved in it.)
That became one of his “best” spots he has done in advertising.
Perhaps ad hoc and “star treatments” are the wave of the future.
March 24, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Or perhaps people like Steve Nash are creative enough without needing two years of portfolio school…
March 24, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Brief Steve to make a beer ad. In 2 days. And sell it in. Then have him make a financial services banner, a 3 episode online documentary. Have him to do a complete rebrand of a soda brand. Ask him to also do a guerilla idea on the cheap that actually sells product.
Yeah, just like I can take a jumpshot and land it perfectly, but I’m not going to go full court against him.
Let’s get a grip. No, our job isn’t rocket science. But it is a job that few are very good at, all around and someone needs to do it day in and say out. There’s a reason the business has evolved that way.
True’s comment above…
“The best ad creatives are masters at creating compelling advertising but that does not mean they are masters at coming up with the best ideas, doing the best production, or being experts in the particular field they are advertising.”
No. Maybe in your case.
March 24, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Tubbs:
“Brief Steve to make a beer ad. In 2 days. And sell it in. Then have him make a financial services banner, a 3 episode online documentary. Have him to do a complete rebrand of a soda brand. Ask him to also do a guerilla idea on the cheap that actually sells product.”
Now… with that assumption you’d be saying that your fellow advertising folk would be not only doing this — but doing an excellent (or at least high-level standard) job on any/all of it?
Pardon me as I doubt your highly optimistic point of view in that it is not only going to get done (in time & on budget) but that the potential end users are going to enjoy nearly half as much as those who seem to be viewing Nash’s ad. (of course at probably 1/25th the cost that your agency would propose it at - natch!)
Or did I assume wrong?
March 25, 2008 at 1:22 am
Seems like the doom—if there is any doom in this story—would be more for television production companies and their attendant unions than advertising agencies.
Actually there is no doom at all.
Maybe a little doom for zero-sum analysis. That every accomplishment must come at the expense of something or someone.
March 25, 2008 at 1:24 am
It’s really apples and oranges.
First, we know that Nike spends a great deal of money on sponsorship deals with athletes like Steve Nash.
We also know that Steve Nash is an incredibly likable and talented guy, adored by millions of fans, nationwide.
When a person, based on talent, accomplishment, good looks, or knack for spectacle can easily command the gaze of the public, there might not be THAT much work to do or money to spend on production of a successful spot ~ especially when you’re dealing with a Steve Nash or a Tiger Woods…and especially if they’re being candid.
But it’s silly to think there’s nothing for the agency to do. It might just mean that agencies used to churning out brand-building vanity spots, will have to find additional ways to assert their value. Technology has re-invented the landscape ~ there’s loads of uncharted territory to claim, metrics and models to develop. The only way this ad is sobering, really, is as a reminder that the democratization of content (and the proliferation of affordable UGC tools) has devalued the stock of the :30 spot-orientated, film or design school graduated creative.
Now, that’s just one trick in a bag that better have a lot of pockets.
March 25, 2008 at 2:19 am
how much did he pay lola schnabel to direct it? how much would an ad agency have to pay if her dad were for sale?
when i build budgets our stuff is so expensive because we have to bill by the man hour. give me a camera and a free director and skeleton crew and i could turn that shit out for 30k, as well.
March 25, 2008 at 2:24 am
Ohdrama:
You might be able to financially do it — but would it be any good?
And you are not factoring in the cost that the agency is going to charge for “the concept” — which is going to be at least five times (if not 10-50x) the entire budget of Nash’s production, correct?
March 25, 2008 at 5:04 am
“does it spell doom for ad agencies?”
are you serious? that kind of line should be in the national enquirer.
“water - is it the end of sand?”
March 25, 2008 at 5:37 am
Well, first of all, the spot ain’t all that. Second, it seems unlikely it only cost $30k. Unless Nash asked the director and editor to work for free. The film and transfer alone will eat up a sizeable portion of $30k. It’s not out of the question for athletes to have ideas about sports spots, just as actors will have ideas about movie roles and performances. Would it be possible to report on something current—or within your area of expertise?
March 25, 2008 at 12:41 pm
OMG Lola Schnabel, the next Sofia Coppola. The thing is, guys, if you step back and stop worshiping at the altar of Nike/W+K, this spot is as generic as it gets. Which doesn’t mean that brands (and agencies) won’t start finding unique ways of getting around the awful bloated absurd ad-making process that currently exists. One way is to just give control to celebs. Diageo did this with Ciroc, handing it over to Diddy, and the results have been pretty disastrous in terms of sales.
March 25, 2008 at 1:50 pm
@Tubbs:
So, you’re really going to claim you know more about being an MVP point guard than Steve Nash? I don’t think anything I said implies Steve Nash could crank out oneshow-winning spots for beer or soda or whatever.
I’m not even saying the spot he did about himself is fabulous. It’s pretty good, but probably owes most of it’s popularity to the fact he did it himself.
All I’m saying is that advertising agencies should be willing to collaborate more. The creatives have mad skills to bring to the table, but so do other people, and we should take advantage of that.
March 25, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Why would these kids idolize Steve Nash anyway? Don’t they know who Juan Cabral is?!
March 25, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I’m not going to get all philosophical here. It looks like another gritty depiction of how awesome modern life supposedly is…at least when you are an NBA player in the off-season. I don’t think keeping the company a secret until the very end of the commercial is a new idea either. There’s probably some fancy advertising word for that. For me, it’s a one time thing that looks nice and probably sells products, not just hits on YouTube. Good for them. Moving on…
March 25, 2008 at 3:24 pm
So if this ad wins an industry award, I assume the credits will read like this:
Client: Nike
Agency: Steve Nash
Executive Creative Director: Steve Nash
Creative Director: Steve Nash
Art Director: Steve Nash
Copywriter: Steve Nash
Agency Producer: Steve Nash
Account Manager: Guess who?
Director: What? Not Steve Nash
April 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm
One name that has been left out in all of this is John Perry. His creativity and vision was behind the majority of the shots and the look of the piece.
I understand he and Schnabel fell out once the footage was shot.
The fact his contribution is not acknowledged is a travesty.