Money vs. More Money

Granted, there's a lot to worry about these days, what with the housing market and the economy and the fire ants and the glayyyvin. Personally, all i can focus on in times like these is how much more money we have to pump into advertising to convince us all to get back out there, and continue buying things like shoes. Now, i recognize that saying something along the lines of "nike ads are always cool" is about as profound as saying "thriller was sweet in 1983" or "cameron turner is a fruitbat."

When nobody has any more money at all, and we're all breaking into our five gallon buckets full of nickels we've been saving for that nsync reunion tour we all know is so totally waiting to happen, we'll be leaving the house for that last trip to the grocery store to stock up on ramen and thunderbird for the apocalypse, and sure enough, one foot out the door, we'll see something like this:



You're obviously buying. I'm buying. We're buying. In this corner, you've got the heir apparent to michael jordan, black barbershops, powdered donuts, and a hip-hopized song from the 50's. How could adidas ever respond to something like this? Yes, of course:



Here, you've got the only reasonable response to an ad of nike's caliber: scooters, kevin garnett, asian rappers, a hip-hopized song from the 50's, missy elliot, david becks, and blurry footage easily recognizable as taped at my most recent birthday party. Right about now you're wishing you'd made it out, aren't you.

But really, how much could this commercial have cost? In the grand scheme of things, Nike is probably going to sell more shoes and have spent less (a paltry 90 million for Lebron) thus giving them the upper hand. When thriller was tearing through car stereos in 1984, Jordan was making 2.5 mil over 5 years. So, obviously, our concept of worth must be on the right track. By those standards, shouldn't all of our parents working in '84 now be making 40 times more? Let's try dad at the office regarding that one.