Saucony has been my running shoe company of choice over the past 6 months or so. Between my Hurricane's and my Paramounts, I feel I have a good few sets. I view their website weekly to see any new products and sometimes salivate over the Grid Sinisters, the Fasttwitch, and the Shay XC. I have enjoyed their sorta small company image against the running world's more heavy hitters like Nike, New Balance, and even Asics, or Brooks. But, I also have secretly wished that they would have a damn cool ad campaign at some point. I mean, I am a child of the media age. I love my MTV, Gossip Girl, and what have ya. So I like cool ads as well. Sue me.
New Balance has their Love/Hate campaign, which is utterly brilliant.
Nike has done more for Track & Field than any company in the sport in this country and always has some hot shit ad campaign.
Brooks "Run Happy" stuff is a bit to hippy for me, but they are trying.
Well now Saucony has a damn good ad campaign finally and they are letting the people in on it as well. Check it out. We Know _________ because we run. It's the shit, told ya. And you can submit entries to have your own idea be an ad.
I love it.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Why have two magazines?
I've talked about this a little bit with Spitz out in Indy, but I'll throw it on here as well. I am a bit disappointed with the current month's issue's of Runner's World and Running Times for a few different reasons. Several months ago, the same publishing company, Rodale, who owns and operates Runner's World purchased the operating rights to Running Times. Fairplay. No real worries there. As is the case with many lifestyle magazines, many themes and articles are repeated from year to year. In running and health lifestyle mags there are a few standby's....
12 Weeks to a new 5k PR!!!
Healthy foods for recovery!!!
Beat the winter blues!!!
and the ever popular, New Year, New YOU!!!!
But here, as we work our way out of the heat of summertime and into some confidence boosting, long run begging fall weather we have identical themes around the last two issues of these two running mags. And what are they, "The Green Issue!"
Now, I am not an anti-enviromentalist by any means. In fact my faith leads me to believe that one of our duties is to be proper stewards of the earth. This in fact has in part led to my vegetarian diet. But, it's hard to miss the irony of a publisher sending out two magazines at 80-90 pages each (many of which, lets face it are not recycled) on the importance of running green.
It's not that I am against this line of thinking at all. It is in fact actually interesting to read about runners footprint on the enviroment. And it is, in fact interesting to read about the steps that many shoe companies are taking to become more green including recycled material in their shoes, and more biodegrable soles, even if they miss some of the most obvious steps (recycled cardboard boxes, please. thanks!). It's just that I am unsure of how much we can write about it. Especially over the course of two magazines. Couldn't it be contained in one? At the end of the day, it's simplistic, I know, but despite Brooks attempts to make a more green shoe, unless it fits better or takes time of my 10k more than my less green Saucony's I'm unlikely to but it just to save a year or two's space in a landfill.
It's nitpicking. Yes, I know. I very much understand. Still, couldn't one magazine maybe use some of those pages to preview the College XC season? Maybe a summary of some of the best College XC courses then serves into a good article on trail running.
Thing is I buy both the magazines anyway. I have a subscription to Running Times, and I purchase Runners World on the newstand month. And even though I told myself I wouldn't this time, due to the overlap of material I did anyway. I love both of your magazines. But please, next month a little more variety?
12 Weeks to a new 5k PR!!!
Healthy foods for recovery!!!
Beat the winter blues!!!
and the ever popular, New Year, New YOU!!!!
But here, as we work our way out of the heat of summertime and into some confidence boosting, long run begging fall weather we have identical themes around the last two issues of these two running mags. And what are they, "The Green Issue!"
Now, I am not an anti-enviromentalist by any means. In fact my faith leads me to believe that one of our duties is to be proper stewards of the earth. This in fact has in part led to my vegetarian diet. But, it's hard to miss the irony of a publisher sending out two magazines at 80-90 pages each (many of which, lets face it are not recycled) on the importance of running green.
It's not that I am against this line of thinking at all. It is in fact actually interesting to read about runners footprint on the enviroment. And it is, in fact interesting to read about the steps that many shoe companies are taking to become more green including recycled material in their shoes, and more biodegrable soles, even if they miss some of the most obvious steps (recycled cardboard boxes, please. thanks!). It's just that I am unsure of how much we can write about it. Especially over the course of two magazines. Couldn't it be contained in one? At the end of the day, it's simplistic, I know, but despite Brooks attempts to make a more green shoe, unless it fits better or takes time of my 10k more than my less green Saucony's I'm unlikely to but it just to save a year or two's space in a landfill.
It's nitpicking. Yes, I know. I very much understand. Still, couldn't one magazine maybe use some of those pages to preview the College XC season? Maybe a summary of some of the best College XC courses then serves into a good article on trail running.
Thing is I buy both the magazines anyway. I have a subscription to Running Times, and I purchase Runners World on the newstand month. And even though I told myself I wouldn't this time, due to the overlap of material I did anyway. I love both of your magazines. But please, next month a little more variety?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
