The self-expression for dollars went from interesting to ridiculous this past week. While the ongoing debate over JR Smith being potentially fined for the Supreme tattoo he now wears gained more steam as the NBA regular season approaches, the New York Jets running back Isaiah Crowell got advice from someone who told him that doing a deal, for money or no, with the “Dude Wipes” brand would be a good idea following his fine after pretending to wipe his rear after a touchdown against the Cleveland Browns ten days ago.
Crowell, as was pointed out by colleague JW Cannon, probably isn’t having the door rung regularly for sponsorships, but thinking that it was “funny” as Gang Green tries to right itself by doing a promotion for a disruptive brand probably wasn’t the smartest thing, and certainly didn’t help grow any personal brand credit going forward.
Now who wins with deals like Dude Wipes, and with Supreme? The brands, who both found themselves in narratives that drew some great attention with no downside for them at all. Especially on the “Wipes” side, credit for finding a smart way to take advantage of a negative situation by finding the jets back and convincing him, or whoever reps him, that this was a smart move. Great short run win for the company, questionable short or long run win for the player.
The Smith issue is certainly one to follow as the question of who can do what in terms of body art seems to be growing. For years boxers, tennis players and even pro beach volleyball athletes have found ways to creatively use exposed skin for profit, albeit most were in the forms of temporary tattoos. Many sports, including the NBA, have seen this coming and have taken preemptive strikes against ambush tattoos which can circumvent any kind of sales opportunity for the controlled assets of league or a team, but from time to time body art, Carmelo Anthony has a “WB” tattoo (not a Warner Brothers endorsement but it is use of a logo) and even the Lakers Lonzo Ball has a massive “Born 2 Ball” brand logo on his arm (poinyed out in our class at Columbia Thursday) that certainly will get some views when LA starts their season (a little different maybe as his family owns the brand).
Where does the line get drawn and who needs to cover what? In the Smith case, it looks like an ongoing debate that the NBA will take a stand on and ask for the coverup. Is the exposure worth the fine? We shall see if brand loyalty for life trumps a little short term financial pain in Cleveland.
Regardless, the best practices of athletes as brands continue to be an interesting look, be they in the NBA, the NFL, or elsewhere. Kudos to the disruptive brands who find creative exposure that helps them now. As far as the players, for short and long term, let’s hope they have the right people around them to make smart decisions, not just ones for a little product or cash and some yucks.
