Something I don’t get about the film Air, about Nike Air Jordan shoes. Spoils -- (edited)
Posted by
Loyola
May 27 '23, 13:40
|
In the film a great deal is made about the fact that Nike chose to focus on one player rather than their annual 3 basketball players that they usually sign. Matt Damon’s character proposes to spend Nike’s whole annual budget of 250k on attempting to sign Michael Jordan to their brand. What then ensues is much consternation about this strategy, to the point that he could potentially be fired over this, and the basketball division in Nike could cease to exist over this strategy, along with the chairman’s position, who indeed did too view this strategy as reckless. That being one of giving 250k to one player to wear Nike.
What seems no little incongruous to me at least is that in attempting to execute this strategy, Matt Damon and his work friend nonchalantly propose later in the film, like it’s no big thing…they propose that they’re going to have less white in the shoe and more red, in contravention of basketball’s rules and that they’ll (Nike) pay the fines of 5k per game. Now if there’s 50 games in a season, that’s another 250k.
So I would estimate a good hour of the film was given over to changing the initial strategy to then spend 250k on one player, with much hand wringing and threatened unemployment. And about 30 seconds was devoted to paying fines of an equal amount so that they could have more red in the shoe. I may be missing something but that seems like a huge disparity of importance given to essentially the same proposition.
|
|
|
Responses:
|
