... you can't handle the truth. Right?
Look, here's the deal. For years, the predominant way that information got to the public was finely manicured -- either in AP style in the newspaper or in finely honed television and radio packages.
On the internet, though, the communication is so cheap that there just isn't the need to varnish it up so fancy before letting people see it. On TV information arrives with makeup, tuxedos, and professionally whitened teeth. In the blogosphere it arrives however it feels like arriving -- in a tiara, or unshaven and in shorts.
The reason blogs have a certain traction, though, I think, is that people realize a lot of things in life are just in their more real state when they're not so crimped and tidy.
Case in point: if you want to know what Gilbert Arenas thinks about different brands of basketball shoes, are you going to believe him when he reads a professionally prepared script in an Adidas commercial? Or are you going to believe him when he says casually, on his blog, that he thinks some of the Adidas prototype designs he saw were icky, and some Nikes and Starburys are pretty cool looking?
I mean, the blog version is just 100% truer right? That's just how people are. There is not a human who really believes, in his soul, that every good shoe comes from one brand. Give me a break.
The problem is that, the way endorsement contracts are set up, that's exactly what corporations would like you to believe. That worked in a world dominated by TV ads. But blogs mess it up. Now Arenas and his ilk are real humans. Speaking frankly to a large audience, Gilbert Arenas is making everybody nervous.
In the Wall Street Journal, Stephanie Kang reports on the trend of athlete bloggers, and how it affects sponsors:
Mr. Arenas has made his share of blunders online. He blogged about the scolding he got from NBA officials for making a $10 bet with a fan at a Washington Wizards-Portland Trail Blazers game in March. Soon after, the league removed the post from Mr. Arenas's blog. Mr. Arenas and the league said that he has agreed not to post on topics like gambling on NBA games.
Mr. Arenas has also complimented certain sneaker styles by Nike Inc. and Starbury, the line endorsed by the New York Knicks' Stephon Marbury -- despite his own endorsement deal with sneaker competitor Adidas.
His criticism of Adidas' new signature shoe created an even bigger issue. Adidas, which wasn't ready to talk about the design, wasn't happy with Mr. Arenas's criticism, according to Adidas spokesman Travis Gonzolez. But "we all took a step back. We said, 'It's Gil being Gil and there's not a lot we can say.' We don't want to affect what he writes," says Mr. Gonzolez.
Blunders? Is it a mistake to tell the truth? Didn't we all learn from that little exchange? Wasn't it a valuable opportunity to reflect on what's good and what's bad about gambling? Is the world a better place if he makes that bet, but keeps it a secret? Does that please the league or the sponsor? What if it's a $100 bet? A $10,000 bet?
I'm glad that Travis Gonzolez said what he said. Amen. But later, in the article there is talk about sponsors building into their contracts some kind of controls on athlete's blogging. That's a little scary.
My vision, and it may be total fantasy, is that people just get more used to hearing from humans talking as humans -- with nuance and foibles. That might be a little scary for brands that don't like frank talk. But for brands that embrace that -- set Gilbert free! He's not hurting anybody ...
