Dominating the five-ish pages The New York Times devoted to sports today (notice I didn't say sports section), the first page is dominated by news of Maria Sharapova calling it quits from tennis at the not-so-ripe age of 32 because injuries and constant pain did her in.
Most of the page, as the Times is prone to do nowadays to cover up its paucity of sports copy, is a striking photo of Sharapova, at once frustrated and content. The next page jumps to a chronology of her remarkable career and the rest of the article by Christopher Clarey. All well and good.
However, immediately adjacent to the jump page is a Nike ad, which, even if you have only a passing knowledge of Sharapova, or just read the preceding spread, you know it's her.
The Clarey article has an interview with Sharapova and the photo was taken by a Times freelancer. But the ad right next to the article? While it may not have been the intent, the end result looks like an advertorial for Sharapova's swan song, in effect paid for by a five-figure Nike ad buy. It would have been much more appropriate--and effective--for the ad to go on the back page of the section, which is mostly taken up by sports news.
The news and business sides of the paper aren't supposed to get involved with each other. But when their worlds collide, somebody has to step in and referee, lest there appears to be some collusion between editorial and advertising.
More curious is that the Times ad is markedly different than another version circulating on the web:
Certainly looks more deliberate than a printing oopsie. This one was just for the Gray Lady--very gray, given the resolution.
It should be noted that the Times didn't have the exclusive on Sharapova. That went to Vanity Fair and Vogue, which had a first-person account from the five-time Grand Slam winner about why she was hanging it up. Still, it doesn't appear she gave an interview to anyone else except the Times, which makes no mention of the magazine missive. That's no knock on Clarey, who has done a more-than-workmanlike job covering tennis and other sports for the Times for decades. It's just a shame that his exclusive is sullied by the impression that Nike and the Times ad reps got a little too cozy.
And because you don't want to zoom in, here's the ad copy.
They wanted you to smile more.
They wanted you to be more polite.
They wanted you to scream a little softer.
They wanted you to be less aggressive when you won.
They wanted you to walk away when you made mistakes.
But instead of just becoming the player the game wanted?
You became the player it needed.
Vintage Nike. A good ad, just one that was not in a good place.
No comments:
Post a Comment