For today's class, we covered a phenomenon called "The Jordan Effect," which rules that "the world's greatest basketball player is also one of its great brands" (Johnson & Harrington, 1998, p. 128). Based on the idea that Jordan was not only the greatest basketball player, but also one of the most profitable brands in history, it was noted in a video included in the lecture that the media knew this as well, and shielded him from any negative publicity as a result. One ensuing question that Dr. Spencer posed to the class asked, "would Jordan have been the 'icon' he was if he had not been protected by the media?"
Personally, my opinion is on the fence in this regard. On the one hand, I think that if reports were released displaying him in a negative light, they would have been blown out of proportion by the media, magnified by critics looking for flaws, and over-exaggerated by some extent of the public. However, on the other hand, if Jordan really was the "teflon athlete" of the century like some claimed, I feel as though a good majority of the public and of basketball fans specifically would be able to overlook the few negatives he had, and celebrate his amazing accomplishments on the court. Therefore, his image may have been reduced, but in the end, his icon-status would still live on.
As a follow-up to this question, NBA Executive VP Rick Welts released a statement which reads, "When Michael (Jordan) retires, he leaves having changed the public's view of what role athletes can play in society" (p. 130). I, for one, agree with Welts; the impact that Jordan had on fans, media, and businesses who watched him play was astronomical. They saw that one player and one player alone had the capability to leave an athletic, personality, and brand impression on a grand scheme as big as the world, and would influence people's behaviors, views, and purchasing decisions today and for most likely the remainder of our lifetimes.
With all that being said, do you think that Jordan would have been the icon he turned out to be if he had not been guarded and/or protected by the media? Also, do you agree or disagree that Michael Jordan defined the role of Black Athletes in our society, and retired having changed the public's view of such?
Until next time,
Neil
P.S. - Even if you don't comment, please be sure to share your opinion on this weeks poll, located on the right-hand side of the blog!
Neil I would first like to start off on commenting about your article, in which I feel that you talked about our class topic perfectly. With that now out of the way I would like to give my opinion to your question. First,I do think he would have been the icon he turned out to be even if the media back in the day did not protect him. From what I remember there were no major scandals that he was involved that would be equivalent to say the Tiger Woods scandal. Second, he is like an athlete like we have never seen where he could completely separate his personal life to his career because he always went out there to perform at his best. I also think that he would not have been the same icon in today's society with all the different types of media coverage that are around today. If somebody does something wrong in today's society it is virtually impossible to cover it up because it always has a way to leak out.
ReplyDeleteI think that he did define the role as black athletes. He was basically the first African American to take on roles that traditionally were played by white males. He opened up the door to African American athletes in the US.
Matt Konyesni
I would like to preface my comment by saying that once again you, Neil, have made a superb blog entry. People come from all across our classroom to see what you have to say. I believe that Jordan would not be the icon he is today if he was not protected by the media. The media is the reason why he is the “teflon athlete”; they were his armor. They shielded him by strategically communicating to the people a picture of Jordan that was the most favorable that it could be. I also agree with what the NBA Executive VP Rick Welts had to say about Jordan. There has not been an athletic to have the impact that Jordan has had on all aspects of people’s lives. A quick example is his brand Jordan. The number of casual/basketball shoes he was put out is crazy. He sells them for premium price, and still can not keep them on the shelves for more than a few hours. He also has football cleats, baseball cleats, bats, gloves, wrestling shoes, etc. On a sadder note, people hurt and kill for these shoes. The Jordan name has the connotation that if you have them you are a superior, cooler, and more stylist person. I believe that Jordan set the bar for athletes as a whole, and not just black athletes. Regardless of color there has not been an athlete that has touched so many aspects of people’s lives. He set a blueprint for athletes on how to become the most enduring athlete the world may have ever seen.
ReplyDeleteMatt McCarroll
I think I can finally answer your question about whether Jordan would have been the same icon if the media had not protected him. If I said that he would not be as iconic, then I would be saying that the media has a tremendous amount of power to influence peoples' opinions. While I do believe that the media exercises a good deal of influence, I do not believe that it has that much power to completely change our impression of Jordan. Furthermore, I believe that if the media protected Jordan, it was not just because he asked them to do so on one occasion. It was also because he carried a lot of clout based upon his endorsement deals. What I realize is that this was a tougher question to answer than I realized when I asked it:-)
ReplyDelete