Swimming In Controversy
One of the dominant news stories over the last week or so has been the alleged downfall of US Olympic swimming hero Michael Phelps. I have mostly ignored this because I somehow missed the Summer Olympics entirely and don’t understand what the big deal is about Phelps, anyway. Also, the coverage of and public reaction to the whole thing seems ridiculously over the top.
What did Michael Phelps do to earn himself so much trouble? He went to a party at his girlfriend’s place in London, and smoked some marijuana. Right or wrong, that in itself would probably not have caused him any trouble at all. His real mistake was not being private enough about his partaking; another party guest whipped out a cell phone and took the picture of Phelps in the middle of inhaling that by now everyone in the First, Second and Third Worlds has seen.
While sidewalk cameras doing image scans of unknowing citizens, hidden security cams, and traffic light cameras and the like are cited as examples of modern electronic invasions of privacy, I think the ubiquitous mini-camcorders and cell phone cameras practically everyone carries around at all times now are more pernicious. One must keep in mind that no matter where one is, moving around anonymously in public or at an intimate gathering with friends, everything one does could possibly and probably will be captured on camera. If it is funny or embarrassing or incriminating enough, one’s act will be all over the world wide web within days.
For someone like me, who grew up before cell phones or digital cameras, and when a camcorder was the size of a television and weighed 50 lbs. or more, this takes getting used to. But Michael Phelps grew up with this stuff, and probably should have known better. That was one expensive bong hit, boy.
Commentary on this story has followed two main lines of logic. The first is the Pollyanna-ish moral stance, the idea that Phelps is just the latest example of a modern hero-athlete who has let down his fans, especially kids, by indulging is less than savory behavior he thought was private, but wasn’t. I have always had trouble with this kind of thinking, if for no other reason than it seems awfully simplistic. Most kids couldn’t care less, and even the ones who do are smart enough to know that just because Michael Phelps partakes of the sacred herb does not mean they should run out and start doing it, too. Unless their parents didn’t teach them any better, of course.
The other line of thinking is more practical. Phelps really hurt himself financially by being caught on camera; his many lucrative, post-Olympic endorsement deals are now in peril. Most of those contracts have morals clauses in them, so a corporate entity has an out if their celebrity spokesman starts going seriously haywire on them, in public. That seems fair enough to me. Speculation has been that some of Phelps’ less than ‘hip’ endorsement partners might bail on him, costing him millions.
In fact, one just did. Kellogg’s Co., the giant U.S. breakfast cereal maker, cancelled its multi-million endorsement deal with Phelps last week, saying the gold medal winner’s recent behavior “is not consistent with the image of Kellogg’s.” The thinking is that this cancellation, and Phelps’ subsequent three-month suspension from competing (and getting paid) by USA Swimming, is just a taste of things to come. USA Swimming is the US’s official Olympic training team. Their statement upon suspending Phelps: "We decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero." Right, the poor kids. Anyway, one expensive bong hit, like I said. I hope it was some damn good weed, at least.
So far, though, the other shoe has not dropped. In fact, Phelps has already confirmed the continued backing of many of his presumably more ‘with it’ sponsors. His hurried if dubiously sincere apology last week for making a “serious mistake” has helped stop the bleeding, but I suspect most of those sponsors were ready too look the other way already. They know this transgression probably will not alienate Phelps from most young fans, especially the ones old enough to have disposable income. The decisions of these sponsors were made with an eye on profits first, but there also seems to be a more realistic idea here of how savvy today’s young people are, how they can separate an athlete’s on-field accomplishments from his private behavior in their minds. It is Kellogg’s and USA Swimming’s hoary moralistic condemnations of Phelps that seem quaint and irrelevant.
In Kellogg's case, it is their money and their image and they can do what they like with both. Their pronouncement on the sacking of Phelps caught my eye particularly, though, for a couple of reasons. First, making a public announcement that smoking pot does not fit your corporate image seems kind of ridiculous. We all knew that. It also seems a bit disingenuous, since it is also possible Kellogg’s saw an opportunity to get out of a multi-million dollar deal, signed back in the halcyon days just after the Summer Olympics, and before the economic crash had big companies scrambling around looking for ways to cut back spending. In this scenario, the braying about corporate image is just a cynical cover-up.
Secondly, either way, does Kellogg’s really have a cohesive corporate image? A universal recognition by consumers of some vague trait – wholesomeness, values-oriented practices, anyway, something that doesn’t have to do with using recreational drugs – associated with the company and its products? Their advertisements mostly promote their individual brands, not the parent company itself. Kellogg’s used to point out in commercials that they were located in Battle Creek, Michigan, which seemed sort of bucolic and perhaps small-town wholesome to consumers. But I have not seen that in a long time. Does the mostly cartoon-ish advertising of their individual brands collectively form a corporate image of Kellogg’s in the mind of the American breakfast cereal eater? It may, but I don’t get a sense of it; anyway, what would that image be? That Captain Crunch and Tony The Tiger and Toucan Sam are emphatically not in favor of smoking weed? Actually, it would be pretty funny if one of those guys was caught lighting up or doing something equally heinous in their down time between making commercials. I’d love to see the apoplectic headlines in reaction to that. “Tony The Tiger Tests Positive For Steroids!” “Toucan Sam Pecks Wife!” “Cap’n Crunch’s Secret Life As A Gay Buccaneer!” I always wondered about those pirate shirts.
Anyway, whether Kellogg’s knows it or not, I think most of us think of them, if we do at all, as a faceless corporate purveyor of negligibly healthy, sugar- and high fructose corn syrup-infused breakfast cereals to our children. And I don’t think Michael Phelps smoking ganja at a private party is going to change that image much in our minds, one way or another.
*****
What did Michael Phelps do to earn himself so much trouble? He went to a party at his girlfriend’s place in London, and smoked some marijuana. Right or wrong, that in itself would probably not have caused him any trouble at all. His real mistake was not being private enough about his partaking; another party guest whipped out a cell phone and took the picture of Phelps in the middle of inhaling that by now everyone in the First, Second and Third Worlds has seen.
While sidewalk cameras doing image scans of unknowing citizens, hidden security cams, and traffic light cameras and the like are cited as examples of modern electronic invasions of privacy, I think the ubiquitous mini-camcorders and cell phone cameras practically everyone carries around at all times now are more pernicious. One must keep in mind that no matter where one is, moving around anonymously in public or at an intimate gathering with friends, everything one does could possibly and probably will be captured on camera. If it is funny or embarrassing or incriminating enough, one’s act will be all over the world wide web within days.
For someone like me, who grew up before cell phones or digital cameras, and when a camcorder was the size of a television and weighed 50 lbs. or more, this takes getting used to. But Michael Phelps grew up with this stuff, and probably should have known better. That was one expensive bong hit, boy.
Commentary on this story has followed two main lines of logic. The first is the Pollyanna-ish moral stance, the idea that Phelps is just the latest example of a modern hero-athlete who has let down his fans, especially kids, by indulging is less than savory behavior he thought was private, but wasn’t. I have always had trouble with this kind of thinking, if for no other reason than it seems awfully simplistic. Most kids couldn’t care less, and even the ones who do are smart enough to know that just because Michael Phelps partakes of the sacred herb does not mean they should run out and start doing it, too. Unless their parents didn’t teach them any better, of course.
The other line of thinking is more practical. Phelps really hurt himself financially by being caught on camera; his many lucrative, post-Olympic endorsement deals are now in peril. Most of those contracts have morals clauses in them, so a corporate entity has an out if their celebrity spokesman starts going seriously haywire on them, in public. That seems fair enough to me. Speculation has been that some of Phelps’ less than ‘hip’ endorsement partners might bail on him, costing him millions.
In fact, one just did. Kellogg’s Co., the giant U.S. breakfast cereal maker, cancelled its multi-million endorsement deal with Phelps last week, saying the gold medal winner’s recent behavior “is not consistent with the image of Kellogg’s.” The thinking is that this cancellation, and Phelps’ subsequent three-month suspension from competing (and getting paid) by USA Swimming, is just a taste of things to come. USA Swimming is the US’s official Olympic training team. Their statement upon suspending Phelps: "We decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero." Right, the poor kids. Anyway, one expensive bong hit, like I said. I hope it was some damn good weed, at least.
So far, though, the other shoe has not dropped. In fact, Phelps has already confirmed the continued backing of many of his presumably more ‘with it’ sponsors. His hurried if dubiously sincere apology last week for making a “serious mistake” has helped stop the bleeding, but I suspect most of those sponsors were ready too look the other way already. They know this transgression probably will not alienate Phelps from most young fans, especially the ones old enough to have disposable income. The decisions of these sponsors were made with an eye on profits first, but there also seems to be a more realistic idea here of how savvy today’s young people are, how they can separate an athlete’s on-field accomplishments from his private behavior in their minds. It is Kellogg’s and USA Swimming’s hoary moralistic condemnations of Phelps that seem quaint and irrelevant.
In Kellogg's case, it is their money and their image and they can do what they like with both. Their pronouncement on the sacking of Phelps caught my eye particularly, though, for a couple of reasons. First, making a public announcement that smoking pot does not fit your corporate image seems kind of ridiculous. We all knew that. It also seems a bit disingenuous, since it is also possible Kellogg’s saw an opportunity to get out of a multi-million dollar deal, signed back in the halcyon days just after the Summer Olympics, and before the economic crash had big companies scrambling around looking for ways to cut back spending. In this scenario, the braying about corporate image is just a cynical cover-up.
Secondly, either way, does Kellogg’s really have a cohesive corporate image? A universal recognition by consumers of some vague trait – wholesomeness, values-oriented practices, anyway, something that doesn’t have to do with using recreational drugs – associated with the company and its products? Their advertisements mostly promote their individual brands, not the parent company itself. Kellogg’s used to point out in commercials that they were located in Battle Creek, Michigan, which seemed sort of bucolic and perhaps small-town wholesome to consumers. But I have not seen that in a long time. Does the mostly cartoon-ish advertising of their individual brands collectively form a corporate image of Kellogg’s in the mind of the American breakfast cereal eater? It may, but I don’t get a sense of it; anyway, what would that image be? That Captain Crunch and Tony The Tiger and Toucan Sam are emphatically not in favor of smoking weed? Actually, it would be pretty funny if one of those guys was caught lighting up or doing something equally heinous in their down time between making commercials. I’d love to see the apoplectic headlines in reaction to that. “Tony The Tiger Tests Positive For Steroids!” “Toucan Sam Pecks Wife!” “Cap’n Crunch’s Secret Life As A Gay Buccaneer!” I always wondered about those pirate shirts.
Anyway, whether Kellogg’s knows it or not, I think most of us think of them, if we do at all, as a faceless corporate purveyor of negligibly healthy, sugar- and high fructose corn syrup-infused breakfast cereals to our children. And I don’t think Michael Phelps smoking ganja at a private party is going to change that image much in our minds, one way or another.
*****
2 comments:
I think Phelps is overrated. And the media never reports actual "news" of importance anymore, maybe they use to (before I was born).. but really it's always something out of nothing, and the something(s) that are of importance are unheard or worse, reported with exaggerations. Headlines are really not much besides a means to get attention and ad revenue -- stupid, really. In any case, I'm really enjoying your blog, my favorite so far (from what I've read) is the one about your "mop"!
Thanks. Me and my 'mop' really appreciate it.
Post a Comment