Case Study 2 Nikes Good And Evil Ad

This ad features a team consisting of some of the world's most famous soccer players including Ronaldo, Maldini, Campos, Wright, Brolin, Kluivert, Costa, and Cantona. The setting is an ancient coliseum or amphitheater that suddenly turns dark as the moon eclipses the sun. Simultaneously, a voice-over begins: "And on that day a dark warrior rose to earth ...to destroy the beautiful game." This is followed by the stamping of a hoof, which sets off a fire as the audience gets a glimpse of an angry, horned, devil-looking character. At this point, what appears to be a piece of raw flesh is thrown onto the dirt playing field and the game begins. It is quickly evident that the team of famous soccer stars represents the good team that faces a squad of masked satanic apostles who represent the evil team seemingly led by Satan himself. The initial part of the game sees the evil team completely dominating the good team by using illegal and punishing forms of violence such as charging and kicking. However, just as it appears as if evil will triumph, the good team rebounds to take control. Various camera shots ensue, featuring a vast array of superior ball handling skills. Finally, the ball is trapped by Eric Cantona, the Nike swoosh clearly displayed on his boots. As he looks at the Satan-like figure, who is now playing goalkeeper, he says "au revoir." Then, with a powerful kick, he drives the ball through the evil figure causing it to explode. Suddenly the eclipse begins to clear and Nike's trademark "Just do it" slogan appears on the screen.

Without going into too much detail, there is considerable religious symbolism displayed in this ad in order to establish the fact that good must triumph over evil. Not unlike the previous Wilson Sporting Goods ad, it would appear that Nike is using forms of conflict, aggression, and violence as a means to promote its brand. Likewise, similar to the Wilson commercial, there is an implied message that violence is an integral part of sport and given that all of the characters featured appear to be male, the link to a dominant form of masculinity is reinforced. However, just as important is the fact that violence is sanctioned as long as it is justified. In this case, it is justified through both retaliation and in the struggle of good over evil. Because many sporting contests are constructed and promoted within the context of conflict, war, and animosity, the rationalization for the use of violence is facilitated.

There are several seemingly inherent contradictions within the ad itself. For example, France's Eric Cantona who, at the time, played for Manchester United, is represented as the saviour for the good team. However, it seems somewhat hypocritical to cast Cantona as the champion of evil given that he has been reprimanded and even banned for his violent sporting outbreaks, the most famous incident being the game at Selhurst Park during which he leapt into the stands to kick a spectator. No doubt Nike and its advertising agency were using Cantona intentionally, but what kind of message does this send to a young audience? According to the ad's creative director David Helm, "We set it up as fantasy . . . I don't think kids are going to be out there kicking each other in the stomach because of it (Whittle, 1996). Helm may be right. On other hand he may be wrong. Should the media err on the side of conservatism or expand and endorse the range of cultural themes and artefacts available for appropriation in the name of capitalism?

The Wilson Sporting Goods and Nike good versus evil commercials are only two examples from a growing list of ads that are using violent and aggressive themes, images, and narratives as part of their campaign. It would seem that there are no barriers or boundaries concerning the exploitation of our cultural terrain. However, this does not mean that the viewing public have no means to challenge or resist. Most nations have established some form of public policy to address the issue of violence on TV Unfortunately, advancing global televisual technology, for example, the use of satellite and digital transmission, makes it increasingly difficult to monitor the ever-expanding availability of potentially harmful material. Likewise, the specific area of advertising is often left to some form of industry self-regulation, thus providing for less scrutiny and control.

At this point, we focus on the problems we have presented and how they are being dealt with in one particular context, namely, New Zealand. Specifically, we focus on how a national advisory body in New Zealand challenged and eventually banned one sporting advertisement for Reebok shoes because of excessive violence.

To begin, it may be useful to provide a brief overview of the context within which advertising regulation occurs within New Zealand. There are two basic phases to the review process. The first phase requires that before being aired, all TV ads must initially be screened and rated by the Television Commercials Approvals Board (TVCAB). The TVCAB auditions and accepts approximately 11,000 commercials annually, which are in turn classified for specific viewing times. However, despite this safeguard, there is a second phase that allows any member of the public to lodge a complaint if he or she feels that an advertisement breaches the Advertising Codes of Practice (1995).

With respect to violence, there are two relevant codes: number 4, Decency and number 5, Honesty.

The code for decency states: 'Advertisements shall not contain statements or visual presentations which clearly offend against prevailing standards of decency or cause undue offence to the community or to a significant section of the community" (p. 14).

The code for honesty states: 'Advertisements must be framed so as not to abuse the trust of the consumer or exploit his/her lack of experience or knowledge" and, more specifically, 'Advertisements must not contain anything which lends support to acts of violence" (p. 14). As a matter of interest, in the past 5 years, at least five sport-related advertisements have been banned due to public complaints, including companies such as Nike, Reebok, and Lynx (Grainger & Jackson, 1999, 2000). What follows is an overview of how one particular Reebok advertisement was challenged, in this case by the TVCAB.

Was this article helpful?