Yeah, so I haven't really been an active participant on the MAMQB lately, but with good reason. Because of my schedule, I decided to kill the proverbial two birds with a solid stone's throw, giving me the inside track on completing some master's degree requirements while also trying to keep Big Willie from ousting me from his less-than-ambitious roster of writers. That said, here's a piece I wrote for my most recent class, which has bearings on some current events in the world of professional basketball, which I admittedly must report I know little and care less about. Man, I can't wait for football season.
Eliminating “Thuggery” in the National Basketball Association: A case study focusing on the positive and negative outcomes of NBA Commissioner David Stern’s actions to better manage the league’s image.
Having dropped a nefariously intolerable solo rap album, this is the only "fan hit" Ron Artest could ever hope to deliver.
Abstract:
Over the past 19 months, three major National Basketball Association (NBA) policies have been issued by the league’s commissioner, David Stern. These new policies, which include an updated dress code for public appearances, a “no-tolerance” rule for in-game behavior, and a separate “leave your gun at home” clause, were and continue to be met with scrutiny and/or support from three main stakeholder groups—players, analysts, and fans. This case study will provide a comprehensive overview of the impact these three policies have on the aforementioned stakeholders.
Background:
Commissioner Stern and his colleagues recognized what they perceived as a negative image emanating from the NBA, based on a variety of incidents taking place on and off the court. These incidents included—but were not limited to— individual and/or team fights, players independently producing rap albums, and off-the-court disturbances, along with what was identified as a general disrespect for the integrity and history of the game of basketball.
In addition, Stern and his staff concluded that improving the league’s image would not only boost its integrity, but also, if done correctly, could benefit the league financially. Stern deduced that offering his publics a cleaner, more responsible product would also result in increased attendance and supplementary corporate sponsorship. This extra money could then be reinvested to increase player salaries, in turn bringing additional parity to the league and its teams. With parity in place, select teams could no longer dominate teams whose salary caps were extraordinarily higher than others.
About the Commissioner
From nba.com:
“David Stern… was unanimously elected as the NBA’s fourth commissioner and began his tenure on February 1, 1984. Since then, the NBA has added seven franchises; enjoyed a fifteen-fold increase in revenues; expanded its national television exposure dramatically; and launched [two additional] League[s]. Interest generated by the league’s growing international initiatives has led to the televising of NBA games in 215 countries in 43 languages.
“…Mr. Stern began his association with the NBA in 1966 as outside counsel, joined the NBA in 1978 as General Counsel and became the league’s Executive Vice President in 1980. During those years, he had a hand in virtually every matter that would shape the league, including the landmark 1976 settlement between the NBA and its players leading to free agency; the collective bargaining agreement that introduced the salary cap and revenue sharing; professional sports’ first anti-drug agreement; and the creation of NBA Entertainment, a marketing, television and multi-media production company that has been telling the NBA story in award-winning fashion for two decades.
“…Mr. Stern is the chair emeritus of the Trustees of Columbia University and serves or has served on the boards of Beth Israel Medical Center, the Rutgers University Foundation, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday Commission, the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, the Museum of Television and Radio, and Jazz at Lincoln Center. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. A native of New York City, Mr. Stern is a graduate of Rutgers University and Columbia Law School.”
Actions and Policies set in motion by Commissioner Stern:
To assess the situation with credibility, we must first establish the following specifics:
1. Dress Code: On October 17, 2005, Commissioner Stern implemented a mandatory dress code for all players in the NBA. In sum, the dress code stated that all players dress in business or conservative attire when (A) arriving and departing venues during games, (B) on the bench while injured or (C) conducting official NBA business—i.e. press interviews, charity events, etc. Moreover, if a player does not suit up for a game, he must follow the dress code set forth for coaches, which typically includes a sport coat, dress slacks, and business shoes. Clothing or accessories prohibited by the Commissioner’s mandate included jerseys, jeans, hats, do-rags, t-shirts, large jewelry, sneakers and Timberland style boots. Violating this policy would result in fines and possible suspensions for repeat offenders.
2. Zero-Tolerance: Beginning with the 2006-07 NBA season, Commissioner Stern backed a new rule regarding the penalization of argumentative players in game situations. This “Zero Tolerance” rule gave referees the ability to call technical fouls when players heatedly complained about calls made against them.
3. “Leave your gun at home” clause: On October 25, 2006, Commissioner Stern said that he “would prefer his players leave their firearms behind when they go out.” “It’s a…widely accepted statistic that if you carry a gun, your chances of being shot by one increase dramatically…although you’ll read [about] players saying how they feel safer with guns [when] in fact those guns actually make them less safe. And it’s a real issue.” To be clear, however, this policy was simply suggested by Stern, and the outcome of this suggestion is yet to be determined.
Things Commissioner Stern has done correctly:
In the broadest sense, Commissioner Stern has done several things correctly. Most importantly, he did not skirt the issues that were presented to him. With advice from his colleagues, Stern took immediate action on several key issues that were consistently being addressed by media analysts and fans. Had he waited to make decisions on any of these important issues, the most probable result would have been increased backlash from his constituents and stakeholders.
Secondly, Stern upheld his policies with the best interest of all involved stakeholders in mind. Stern realized he was losing trust from all three key stakeholder groups—players lamented the rising brutality of the sport, analysts were questioning Stern’s ability to remanufacture and remarket the NBA’s image, and the fans were becoming discouraged by the lack of respect players had for the game and its traditions. Stern moved forward with new policies and procedures that he thought would make a direct and immediate impact on the respect and tradition of the sport itself, the league’s overall image, and the safety of all his players.
In addition to instant product improvement, Stern cemented what many believe is his legacy in the sport of professional basketball by instituting policies that extended the league’s profitability by close to 18 percent in two years – from $43.87 million in the 2004-05 season to what’s projected to be more than $53.13 million in the 2006-07 season.
Analysts’ images of the NBA were also affected by Stern’s quick reaction to these crises. By directly confronting the widespread problems of appearance, violence, and disrespect, analysts had no choice but to retract their previous sentiments about Sterns’ inability to influence league-wide changes in those three categories, shortening the media’s opportunity. Stern’s swift and staunch policy-making gave the NBA new credibility, and public faith was renewed as higher expectations, individual responsibility, and team cohesion once again were becoming the norm.
It must be pointed out that Stern’s actions also served to protect his own reputation. The role of commissioner is unique—when Stern makes decisions about league policy, he is his own public affairs representation. He answers questions about policy changes or new procedures directly from the media—in a sense, this makes Stern his own public relations tactician. The results of his actions ultimately affect his own credibility and trust in the eyes of his players, the media, and the fans. Since Stern is so deliberate in taking responsibility for those actions, the scrutiny that follows is his own, and he is quick to either defend his position, as he has with the dress code, the “no-tolerance” rule, and the “leave your gun at home” clause; or admit his mistake, as he did by reinstituting leather balls in 2007 after a brief experiment with microfiber balls earlier in the season, saying the league should have sought more input from players before introducing the new ball. He continued by saying he would address the players’ criticisms with Spalding, the manufacturer.
Lastly, and most importantly, is the reaction from the fans to the policies and procedures that Stern has put in place. As the major consumer of all things NBA, Stern is obligated to deliver those fans a decent product. When that product is professional-level basketball, three ideals become paramount: it must be embedded with tradition, surrounded in integrity, and steeped in standards of behavior that all players must meet. By protecting and preserving the current and future image and profitability of his product with the policies he’s set forth, Stern has proven that his public relations tactics have the high-caliber efficiency needed to be successful in a world market. His commitment to the fans of the league, coupled with his dedication to the values of safety and responsibility, has restored his credibility among several important stakeholders.
Issues:
Naturally, the good is often counteracted by the bad, and in the case of Commissioner Stern’s league image overhaul, several points of contention have made their way to the headlines. The most damaging, of course, are the complaints from several of his players, independent analysts, and investigative fans that the newly-adopted policies are meant to eradicate what players and the media have coined “basketball’s hip-hop culture.” In essence, many of the efforts Stern has initiated have met with harsh criticisms of the league’s purported racial profiling. The backlash from such an accusation is not easily brushed aside. Though arguments can be made that race isn’t a key element in defining who fits the category of “hip-hop community member,” there are pundits who reason that these policies were put in place for the 73 percent of NBA players who are African-American. Many people in the sports community were hurt and angered that Stern had the authority to control such culturally-affiliated items such as do-rags, large pendant necklaces, and Timberland boots. Stern made a point to identify non-black league players who also wore such hip-hop ensembles, such as Jason Kidd, but his efforts went unnoticed because of the small percentage of non-ethnic players in the league who could be categorized as a member of the “hip-hop” community His strategies to incorporate a business-like appearance and to reduce the possibilities of injury or criminal activity with a gun-control clause were seen as prejudiced and inappropriate, especially for a league in which the majority of players fit the description of what Stern set forth to eliminate.
David Steele, a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, noted that the policy change “carries an undercurrent of bias that runs along racial, cultural and generational lines. ... Inevitably… [this] devolves into a commentary on tattoos, cornrows, marijuana use, stretch limos, rap music and unwed fatherhood. Even when the quality of play itself remains the topic, buzzwords that sound painfully familiar crop up: undisciplined, poor work ethic, bad fundamentals, unintelligent play, lack of character, out of control.”
Players also have critiqued Stern’s policies. NBA stars Allen Iverson, Stephen Jackson, and Paul Pierce were adamant that a dress code policy has no effect on character. (“They’re targeting guys who dress like me, guys who dress hip-hop. Put a murderer in a suit and he’s still a murderer,” Iverson was quoted as saying. “Associating hip-hop…with crime or a bad image is racist.”) In addition, sports figures beyond basketball have noted that the NBA targets young, black males, and to deny the league access to the objects stereotypically belonging to the market it targets is completely unethical, especially when the NBA exploits players to its benefit if it suits them.
Analyst backlash has also been an issue. In efforts to prove that the NBA is marketable to a wide variety of cultures, recent NBA All-Star game halftime musicians have included the likes of Gwen Stefani and Big & Rich—performances which former All-Star player-turned-analyst Charles Barkley has publicly ridiculed. In addition, ESPN contributor Jemele Hill thinks that Stern “has the NBA pointed in an elitist direction,” comparing today’s NBA to “a post 9/11 era -- full of fear, worry, paranoia and hysteria.
“It's so frustrating to watch the NBA police itself to death and try to control things it can't,” she continues. “People who believe the NBA is full of thugs will think that way no matter what. The NBA could play Paul Anka at every arena, ban rappers from NBA games, enforce haircuts and short shorts, but that isn't going to stop hip-hop fans from loving the game. If anything, the NBA’s [current] tactics are only heightening the perception that the league is full of thugs.”
Did what Stern do work?
Fortunately, we can break this down into numbers, making the comparison between “pre-Stern mandates” and “post-Stern mandates,” as follows:
Highest Total NBA Regular Season Attendance
1. 2005-06 21,595,804
2. 2004-05 21,296,497
3. 1995-96 20,513,218
4. 1997-98 20,373,079
5. 1996-97 20,304,629
6. 2003-04 20,272,195
7. 2001-02 20,181,131
8. 2002-03 20,074,369
9. 1999-00 20,058,513
10. 2000-01 19,955,981
As noted in the above chart, regular season attendance has increased by more than 1.3 million people. From that, we can gather that Stern’s tactics did work—in the short-term. A question remains, however: despite the short-term attendance increases, should the NBA also expect to see dividends in the future based on the procedures and policies recently set in place by Commissioner Stern? Unfortunately, we can’t know at this time. Players, analysts and fans have offered different yet equally-gripping testimonials with regard to both the positives and negatives surrounding Stern’s decisions. Perhaps we have yet to see the final outcome, but for now Stern’s decisions have had a markedly encouraging outcome for the whole of professional basketball.
Things that could have been done better/differently:
As stated previously, Commissioner Stern’s commitment to changing the image of the NBA has yielded some positive results. Even so, I believe there are elements of his decision-making that may have garnered even more affirmative outcomes. Inexplicably, almost, Stern seemingly turned his back on his player union’s largest demographic and, presumably, largest fan base—African-American males. With what could be described as a blatant disregard for the players he mandates, Stern may have been better off to research what type of impact such decisions would make in the league he oversees. In all elements of public relations planning, research is the first step, preceding action in all models. Though a positive move, it seems that Commissioner Stern may have acted in haste by deciding on these issues without having his colleagues gather the necessary information and feedback he’d need to truly ensure that everyone’s best interests were being served.
Even now, Stern has the option to review the decisions he’s already made, and to evaluate the outcomes of those decisions more thoroughly before pressing on with other initiatives. Again, since public relations revolves around two key components—research and evaluation— Commissioner Stern may benefit from revisiting his decisions and the reasons he initially made them, while also weighing the benefits of those decisions through extensive evaluation. By doing so, the product he offers to players, analysts, and fans alike can improve even further.
Associated Press, “Stern to players: Leave your guns at home,” MSNBC, 2006.
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419993 >
Inside Hoops, “NBA Salary Cap,” Inside Hoops, 2006.
<http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-salary-cap.shtml>
Jemele Hill, “Stern has the NBA pointed in an elitist direction,” ESPN, 2006.
<http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/070321&sportCat=nba>
Information taken from http://www.insidehoops.com/attendance.shtml
The only other things I have to add are:
1. Eddie Curry is a useless piece of meat on the basketball court. Here's an official "LOL" to the New York Knick's organization.
"...and they almost got free hamburgers."
2. It's painful to watch Lou Pinella, once full of piss and vinegar, slowly lose his fire and passion for the game of baseball. He either needs to throw a base into the outfield in a tyrade, or simply cut his losses and pass on to the netherworld during another corny artist's rendition of "Take Me Out to the Ball Game."
and 3. Don Imus is the last person on Earth that should ever table a discussion about "bad hair."
(PEACE OUT...A-TOWN, BABY)
RHINO
THE "A" LIST
That's the hottest piece of snooch Eli's ever had his small gay hands on...
This chick is our friend on MySpace. She's super hot and a Steelers fan. That's enough reason for me...
And let me go on record as the first person to plead the case for Brody Croyle's wife's Marvelous Cans to be named the starting QB of the Chiefs....
