Last week, I presented at the Cool Twitter Conference in Brooklyn, New York. I discussed ways in which people can use Twitter to disseminate and promote services, products, and ideas. I detailed my work with YouthNoise and how I use Twitter to engage in social conversations. My presentation was based on this idea/space I called Twitter Society. I define Twitter Society as,
"A place where cultural exchanges take place and un/written rules, etiquette, and behaviors are thusly devised and supported by the society."
The more I engage with folks on Twitter, the more I notice how this type of social space functions similarly to our 'offline' societies.
In Twitter Society, there are patterns of written language, etiquette rules, and by golly, there's even a Twitter jail! There are networking groups and clicks made up of academics, activists, celebrities and regular Jills and Joes. All of these people are engaging in some sort of dialogical relationship. Though Twitter has over 50 million users, not all of them are active. But the ones that are active sure do tweet a lot, including yours truly!
During my presentation I cited specific examples of how people engage. I mentioned one of my first ever encounters with an active tweeter; NBA player Shaquille O'Neal (@ THE_REAL_SHAQ). I joined Twitter about a year ago, but have only been active within the last 3-4 months (@taralconley). When I first joined, I began following Shaq because I heard his tweets were interesting (read: engaging). I noticed right away that Shaq tweeted a lot. One of the ways he would engage with fans was to send his followers on scavenger hunts. I remember one time he tweeted about being at the local mall in Miami and said the first person to find him at this particular mall would win a free pair of his sneakers.
Fans and followers have noted how cool Shaq is for actually responding and talking "directly" to them. They feel a sense of intimacy with their favorite NBA star. Arguably, before Twitter came along this type of "direct" intimacy with celebrities - namely professional athletes, was non-existent. Sure, athletes have Facebook pages and blogs, but it's Twitter that provides a sense of immediate gratification and direct engagement fans and followers seem to embrace.
"Howard is one of a growing number of athletes using social media to help build his image, and on his blog he chronicles some of the other things he’s done recently."
From a PR perspective, it seems as though pro athletes are adopting social media outreach for branding and image control purposes. While this may be true, I'm also incline to believe that celebrities and professional athletes are drawn to social media the same way you or I are drawn to these social spaces. They too desire to be a part of communities made up of diverse people and ideas. Call it narcissism, call it altruism, or call it our psychological need to be loved and belong to a social space. Whatever the case may be, it's apparent that these social networks speak to something human and societal, and they are changing the way professional athletes communicate with others.
As I mentioned in my presentation, "Twitter makes us more aware of our purpose in the conversation." Those active tweeters know that Twitter requires time and commitment, perhaps even more than Facebook and Myspace. Twitter also forces us to choose our tweets wisely. We've seen what happens when tweeting goes awry for public figures.
So while Twitter and other social networks allow people to connect instantly and directly, all of us are still responsible for our social behaviors and actions in these spaces. We've gotten accustomed to rethinking a position before uttering it to a family member or friend, but because we live in such a terribly fast and invasive age with the advent of the World Wide Web, we're now forced to rethink our (re)thoughts. And maybe, in the end, that's a good thing.
Johnson, Howard, and O'Neal are among many high profile athletes whose tweets will be scrutinized in Twitter Society. These athletes aren't only being watched by fans in the stands, but also by followers lurking behinds Twitter avatars. As a 'snew ' (social + new) media consultant, I'm hopeful these athletes can use online platforms of social media to further engage with fans and serve their communities off the playing field.
The Universe is so letting the sports world be great this week. Has anyone else noticed how many fascinating sports stories have been appearing in this week's news cycle? If not, no worries, I compiled a list of featured sports-related stories.
Yahoo! News reported yesterday that Ruth Frith, from Brisbane, broke the world record for being the first 100-year-old woman to throw a shot put 13 ft. 4 in. Um, wow. First of all, I remember back in the day when my fellow middle-school track teammates couldn't even jump 13 ft., let alone throw a ball 13 ft. - and these were twelve and thirteen-year-old teenagers!
This great-grandmother trains 5 times per week, lifts weights, doesn't eat vegetables (because she doesn't like them), and doesn't drink or smoke. In addition to throwing the shot put, Frith also throws the hammer and javelin. I tried to throw a javelin in college and basically sucked at it.
Ruth Frith is awesome. Period. She's also another reminder that I really need to stop coming up with lame excuses to avoid hitting the gym every day.
In other not-so-awesome-news, ESPN senior writer, Wright Thompson recently wrote a reflexive-expose, Seats of Gold: Yankee Stadium's Legends Suite Was Sparsely Populated at Times This Season - A Sign of What Greed Does to Loyalty about the high price of being a sports fan. His story centers around the brand new Yankee stadium, chock-full of luxurious amenities that service the most elite & over indulgent fans. If you're simply a 'normal' sports nut whose into Ball Park Franks and beer in plastic cups, then you're better off staying at home; you're not wanted in these parts.
Thompson was invited to watch a Yankee game from the Legends Suite, presumably because he's a sports writer. While he admits feeling the 'perks' he couldn't help but recognize a sad reality within professional baseball: greed. Wall Street brokers and wealthy Yankee baseball fans have had a long and, yes, corrupt past. Thompson details this lustful relationship in the article. But the Yankees isn't the only team gripped by corporate greed's stronghold, Thompson's commentary speaks to a larger, more tragic phenomenon happening within all major professional sports teams in the US. Thompson notes:
"A recent poll discovered an unsettling trend emerging for the first time. American families whose household income is $75,000 or less now have zero dollars of discretionary income. According to Luker, that means about 75 percent of the country can never responsibly afford to go to a live professional sporting event . . . The reason sporting events cost so much now, Luker's research shows, is because they are designed to be affordable only to those making $150,000 or more a year."
Professional pollster, Rick Luker adds,
"We have the first true sustained evidence of less interest in sports than there was 10 years ago . . . in general, sports will not be what it is today. We're burning out the love of sports."
Professional sports teams are pricing themselves into oblivion and losing tons of loyal and young fans along the way.
Thompson piece is honest and insightful. He struggles with being a loyal fan and objective sports writer while temporarily participating in the lavish luxuries of the Legends Suite. Somewhere between his charming and witty written descriptions, you realize Thompson unearths a complex relationship between the love for the game and the power of greed. Being part of the elite at Legends Suite has a moral price, one in which Thompson and thousands of other die-hard fans end up paying.
After leaving the game, Thompson writes: "Something important was lost in the transfer of money for services. The game happened. I loved it. Now it's over. People file out of every exit, disappearing into the night. They walk to subway stations, to cabs, to parked cars. Some of us won't ever come back."
(Wow, I'm totally realizing that this mid-week round up is depressing.)
Football is really exciting right now. The New York Giants have yet to lose a game this season, so fans around here are in high spirits-- but that's not the only reason to be psyched!
The NFL has also stepped into the arena of Breast Cancer awareness, a move that's great both for the sport and for public health at large.
The biggest football game of the year is a bigger family party event than New Years, Christmas, or Thanksgiving. So when the NFL makes a statement about Breast Cancer, lots of people are going to listen.
October has been declared Breast Cancer Awareness month for the NFL, and lots of players, coaches, and officials have taken to sporting pink versions of the usual NFL gear in order to make a statement. In addition, many teams are selling pink merchandise and donating a portion of the revenue toward Breast Cancer related charities.
With any type of cancer, early detection can sometimes be the difference between living and dying. Since football is among the most-watched television programming in the country, a little reminder from the NFL about the importance of regular check-ups and self-exams in the fight against cancer can go a long way.
Whether you're male or female, old or young, you should be alert for changes in your body, particularly in cancer hot spots like your breasts or testicles. Perform regular self-examinations and don't be afraid to let a doctor know whenever something changes!
The stigmas against discussing our 'private' organs are great, but highly visible campaigns like the NFL's October program will certainly help many Americans to feel more comfortable discussing and keeping tabs on their health. Let's keep this ball moving forward!
This week over on Womanist Musings guest contributor femonade blogged about Nike's latest commercial featuring NFL running back Adrian Peterson. The commercial centers around Peterson's agile athleticism and uber strength. One problem, though, according to femonde:
"[The commercial is] so horrible, I literally have to turn my head whenever it comes on. WTF? A black man can't be a great athlete without likening him to…an animal? An alien? Something inhuman, and some manner of scaly-skinned freak?"
Femonade criticizes Nike for perpetuating dangerous stereotypes, citing historically degrading tropes that always seem to creep up now and then in American popular culture; animalistic, barbaric, scary, dangerous, dark black guys. Pretty much opposite everything nice, tame, and um, light. Femonade also mentions the traditional practice of skin-branding that's been a commonplace in African and African-American culture.
Femonade writes:
"In my estimation, the best-case scenario here is that Nike wanted not to give a black man animalistic or inhuman qualities, but used “texturized” black skin to evoke a skin-branding ritual with a sordid history, but that has been somewhat reclaimed recently by black fraternities."
Femonade continues to argue that even if this is Nike's way of evoking a skin-branding tradition, it's probably not a good look for Nike (a mega corporation with a not-so-squeeky-clean history with folks of color) to evoke these traditions while claiming them for the purpose of marketing a sports product.
Dangerous territory, Nike. Very dangerous, territory.
But it's not like we haven't been confronted with questionable imagery in sports advertising before. How could we forget this gem:
This particular photo, splashed all over Vogue Magazine last year, started a s**t storm in and around the blogosphere. Everyone from fashionista bloggers to racialicious bloggers were writing about it.
Needless to say, Lebron likened to Tarzan the Ape while grabbing a white damsel in distress (though she really didn't looked distressed, but more like she was doing some kind of awkward dance move) didn't sit well with the folks. Aside from the ad being in poor taste, it was unflattering to both Lebron's athletic swagga and Giseles' graceful sexiness.
So here's the thing about the Adrian Peterson ad: It's scary. The last thing I think about while looking at the commercial is "Oh, hell yeah, I gotta cop whatever they're selling!" I'm not even quite sure what Nike's selling in the ad to begin with. The cinematography alone is dreadful - literally. Slow moving shots, grey imagery, cold, and uninviting. It reminded me more of freezing my butt off at a Browns game in Cleveland. Sure, I know Nike isn't trying to sell Popsicles here, but when and why did sports become so horribly depressing?
Without question, there are racial undertones attached to the Peterson ad. At the end of the commercial when Peterson's skin turns reptile-alien like, I can't help but squirm upon the sight of such imagery. It makes me uncomfortable. It's not so much that I fear reptiles or even aliens, but I'm concerned that these images, more often than not, make people fear each other. We're being told things big, black, dark, and amimalistic are scary, and society - a.k.a the real damsel in distress - should be scared. America has a long sordid history with attaching people of color to dangerous and inferior imagery, and because that history is so deeply embedded in our consciousness, it's best not to correlate these things at all - especially in a sports commercial.
Does this Nike ad fail on the racially sensitive front? Hell yeah it does. Does Nike have an alterior-motive to purposely degrade, dehumanize, and disenfranchise all people of color? I highly doubt it.
Unfortunately, the enormous gaffe here is that the Nike ad is an example of, (and further contributes to), our arrested development as a collective. We should know better. With that said, even though Nike has a history of epic gaffes, the company continues to work with communities of color (and HERE) and partners with great organizations like YouthNoise to make a difference in the lives of others through sport and play. Again, it's about the outcomes.
Nike did release a statement about the ad, which in my opinions sucked. My advice for Nike? Keep working with us, not against us, and by all means, send your ad executives on a week long ethics retreat.
There has been recent speculation on the future of Michael Vick. He was allowed back into the NFL with a conditional re-instatement from Commissioner Roger Goodell. The conditions of his re-instatement include Vick being allowed to participate in practices and the final 2 pre-season games, also as of right now he is not allowed to play in any regular season games until Week 6. The thought of signing a Quarterback that can't play until Week 6 is driving most teams away. Goodell has the choice to shorten or increase the suspension. The upside for Vick is that Goodell may potentially shorten the suspension to Week 2. If this happens I find it hard to believe that an NFL team won't sign him. Vick has great talent and could help a number of teams, he also seems committed to making the most of the second chance that has been given to him. I believe that Vick is very focused on continuing his football career and gaining his reputation back. His new view on the way he should lead his life along with his obvious talent make him a good player to sign. With the recent news of Brett Favre's decision to stay retired may open up a spot for Michael Vick. My question is whether or not you think Vick should be signed by an NFL team and whether or not Goodell should shorten Vick's suspension from the regular season games. Also any suggestions of teams that should sign him.
