The two ads that I'm describing represent the tennis shoe department between Nike and Reebok. The Nike ad presented a basketball shoe that combined different parts of previous shoes they design, but all in one. The background was pure white that allowed the shoes bright red, white, and black colors to be displayed more aggressively. Reebok represented also a basketball shoe but instead they used an icon (Allen Iverson/NBA basketball player) to emphasize the shoes in a way that would attract a consumer's eye. The shoe had a very unique design that was also a combination of Allen Iverson's first Reebok basketball shoe, however with a little twist- more futuristic look. With Allen Iverson in the background and his reputation, this is an advantage in an ad that Reebok had that Nike did not.
             Both Nike and Reebok are targeting the same audience, and that audience is athletic males between the age 15-25 who desire to wear a basketball shoe that us attractive, reliable, and popular in terms of wearing a pair of basketball shoes that professional basketball players wear on television.
             Nike and Reebok obviously our competitor that are trying to make the most profit by advertising their basketball shoes the best way possible. As a result, it causes consumers to make a decision in which shoe brand to purchase and if one is better than the other. Nike could have been had more artistic design in the ad or used a professional athlete like Reebok to draw more attention to the shoe. The advertising battle was obviously won by Reebok, but still Nike basketball shoes sell more than Reebok- why is that? Both positioning methods match the way each company represent themselves, Nike is a more laid back company who makes a lot of profit, therefore they don't have to put much effort in advertising. Where on the other hand, Reebok is an upcoming company who is not as popular as Nike, therefore
             ...