Too much left to the imagination.

The average person is, well, average. That's not to say he or she is ignorant or clueless or out of touch, but just average. The average person knows an average amount about an average number of things. He's not a rocket scientist. She's not glued to the morning and evening news. And the average person definitely does NOT ready the marketing trades.

Where do you think the average person stands on carbon footprint reduction?

You're correct if you said half of the average people know nothing about carbon footprints. The other half know somewhere between a little and a lot.

Now, how many people know what sneakers are? That's right, almost everyone.

So, if you were a sneaker company, do you think it makes good financial sense to devote 60 seconds of air time to positioning your product as a good way to reduce one's carbon footprint?

Check the simple math above if you said "yes". If you said "no", I agree.

Now, check this out:

http://www.trustcollective.com/portfolio/content/suspect_runninggreen.php

This spot is nicely shot, but boy does it leave a lot to the imagination. And when I say "a lot", I mean a whole #$%*load. Close to 100% left entirely to the imagination here.

No words, just an image of a pair of shoes running along an urban street leaving grass and flowers where there was once concrete and one, final glimpse at an explanation in the tag line - 'New Balance. Reducing your carbon footprint one step at a time.'

Guys, this is not only a miss, it is a very irresponsible way to burn a marketing budget.

I suppose the insight here is meant to be that people want to reduce their carbon footprint; that is, all of us or a good number of us are really concerned about doing positive things like this for the planet so we'd like to run rather than take a cab or drive or something. And why not run with New Balance sneakers?

First of all, what research led anyone to think that there's enough people out there SO concerned about reducing THEIR carbon footprint that they will run rather than take some other form of transportation? Yes, indeed, these people exist - but they are primarily concerned with broader reductions, beyond those they can make by running rather than taking a cab. Not to mention, the vast majority who live in cities like new york (where this is shot), do not drive! They rarely take taxis due to the expense; they typically walk and/or enjoy a hot, sweaty, cramped, uncomfortably shared ride on a subway!

That's nearly beside the point.

The point is, the insight is flawed and the execution, if it intends to deliver on this insight, is very vague. And even if they were to get that far, what makes New Balance the answer any more than any other running sneaker? Or flip flops for that matter? Hell, why not go barefoot and reduce the carbon footprint required to manufacture your shoe in the first place? If you miss the tag line, you might miss the point entirely. And for once, that may actually be a good thing.

New Balance is a very solid running sneaker. It offers good functionality, good sport versatility, decent fashion, helps support the foot, align it properly and protect against injuries. It enables athletes to perform. There are at least 100 other ways to position a running sneaker as good as New Balance. Why try to sell them on the basis of carbon footprint reduction?

This is so nonsensical, I can't stand it.

OFF STRATEGY. And I don't even feel bad about saying that.