The Wrong Kind Of Attention

While I have never been the kind of person to get star-struck, I can readily admit that I understand why clothing companies are willing to pay so much money to have famous people wear their clothes. Besides the fact that there are people out there who are happy to base their purchases on what they see reality stars wearing, it is simple economics. Even though you or I may not care less where movie stars eat lunch, there are people out there who do nothing but try to take pictures of celebrities (even minor ones) all day long in the hopes that 1 shot in 1,000 will be good enough that they can sell the pictures to a magazine. If that photo actually gets published the clothing line will get their stuff on display in every news stand in America and they didn't even have to do anything to make it happen when normally that would cost them tens of thousands of dollars and hours of work. In terms of advertising it is as close to free money as you are going to get. The key thing is to pick the right celebrity. On Thursday athletic shoe company Reebok ended its endorsement deal with rapper Rick Ross after lyrics to his new song came out which appeared to endorse drugging a girl and having sex with her while she is passed out (charming fellow).

Reebok, who endorse many athletes through the years and thus is quite adept at quickly putting distance between them and someone who exhibits bad behavior, was quick to say they don't agree with anything in the song and would be ending their association with Ross effective immediately. Obviously, I don't condone Ross or his lyrics so I think Reebok was right to give him the heave-ho, but at the same time I don't feel Reebok should be getting a free pass on this one like ending his deal makes the whole thing go away because honestly, they never should have signed him in the first place. If you go back and read the lyrics to any Rick Ross song (here's where I get old by saying reading them is really the only way you will be able to understand them), this is hardly the first questionable topic he has decided to rap about. Happily rapping about things most of us would rather not talk about is kind of what he does, so Reebok acting shocked and aghast gives me the same feeling I get when I hear about the people who keep wild animals as house pets and then can't understand why they suddenly became violent. Four seconds of research would have told them this was a bad idea.

I get what Reebok was going for because they are slowly fading in the sneaker game and are desperate to stay relevant. Once a big player in the athletic apparel game, now they need exposure where ever they can get it, so I'm sure the idea of having their newest sneakers appear in a big-time music video sounded like a really good idea at the time. (Admittedly, I do this with random stuff myself. I was watching a movie the other night and saw they were using the same printer as I do. Seeing this I said, out loud and no one in particular, "Hey, I have that printer." It was almost a reflex. This is why product placement works.) And no where do sneakers play a bigger role than a rap video, because rap videos seem to shape style better than any other musical genre. I think Nelly has three songs just about favorite shoes. (I never went to the backwards clothes like Kriss Kross, but Ice-Cube videos are pretty much the only reason I owned an Oakland Raiders jersey.) Also, a lot of the edge surrounding rappers has softened in the last few years, what with formerly hardcore guys like Ice-T appearing on Law & Order and Ice Cube selling us Coors Light. So, you can understand why Reebok would think they had a good idea on their hands, but that doesn't excuse their lack of judgement.

The thing is you can give entertainers free stuff to wear while they are going out without making any type of formal endorsement agreement with them. Believe me, clothing companies do it all the time and most people are never the wiser, assuming the clothes are a personal choice and not being worn because they arrived in a box that afternoon. (I don't really have an desire to be famous, but I will concede it must be nice to just have free stuff showing up at your house all the time.) In some ways I feel it is a better way to go because unlike, say, Shaq and his Buick, I tend to appreciate an endorsement when I think the person would actually use a product whether they were getting paid for it or not and that deception is easier to pull of when that celebrity is seen wearing your shoes to run to the store rather than glammed up for an expensive photo-shoot. So in that regard I would almost prefer the under-the-table deal. It is also better for both side because it makes it easier to separate from each other should the other side be caught doing something illegal or immoral. And when a musician has a song entitled, "I Love My Bitches" you know it is only going to be a matter of time before it happens.