Jason Whitlock says "Less Tattoos = Better Ratings"...

[canadian bball]

he's right, to an extent.

my parents didnt like the fact that i liked dennis rodman growin up cus of the hair and peircings. its the same thing.

The fact is, like it or not, these dudes are role models. Every kid that emulates delonte or cherokee parks (who was dope as a grizzly) or any otherexcessively tatted player they admire and gets tats in visible areas WILL lower their chances of success in the professional world. Simple as that.

I dont think people dont watch the games because of tatted up players, but i do think people tell their kids things about those players and their choices todissuade them from looking up to those players.

in our society appearance matters, we all know this. Like that dude whos whole body is tatted up like a leopard or whatever, you think he's gonna get a jobanywhere? mcdonalds wouldnt even hire that fool.

 

[abeautifulhaze]

Lets forget the fact that the second and third biggest media markets in the nation, the most hyped team in recent league history and the NBA's two moststoried franchises, and are on a collision course to meet in the Finals.....

Forget that Kobe has finally became an all-around player and is on his way to grabbing a spot next to MJ....

Overlook the fact that the more entertaining West Coast games are now being shown at an earlier time, so that the whole country can view the Playoffs at areasonable time....

It can't be exciting games, good matchups, some controversy, lack of rival sports events, roster changes, new blood like CP3 coming of age, a new packedschedule that keeps fans tuned in.....

Yea its the tattoos....the jailbird tattoos to be precise.


Uncle Toms FTL

 

[trueblack88]

Originally Posted by canadian bball

he's right, to an extent.

my parents didnt like the fact that i liked dennis rodman growin up cus of the hair and peircings. its the same thing.

The fact is, like it or not, these dudes are role models. Every kid that emulates delonte or cherokee parks (who was dope as a grizzly) or any other excessively tatted player they admire and gets tats in visible areas WILL lower their chances of success in the professional world. Simple as that.

I dont think people dont watch the games because of tatted up players, but i do think people tell their kids things about those players and their choices to dissuade them from looking up to those players.

in our society appearance matters, we all know this. Like that dude whos whole body is tatted up like a leopard or whatever, you think he's gonna get a job anywhere? mcdonalds wouldnt even hire that fool.

Firstly, don't compare Dennis Rodman to Joe-Blow NBA player who happens to have tattoo's. Dennis was more than tattoo's, he was his own littlepublicity-creating aura. Whitlock isn't talking about the Dennis Rodman's of the world...he's talking about all the players who happen to havetattoo's. Doesn't matter they never been in trouble, they never did anything to warrant the 'thug' persona, they just have tattoo's so asWhitlock says, they are 'menacing brutes'...

And if someone emulates a tatted up player, they are dumb. Thats not a reason to get tattoo's, because an NBA player does. But if you want to get asleeve or a few tats, thats fine and you can still find work (Trust me, I know). Unless you have tattoo's on your hands, neck or face that can't becovered, you will be fine. Thats something parents should tell their kids: Those players with their hands and necks tattooed are millionaires many times overand can afford to do that. You can't. Its that simple...

 

[bigpunoy]

I agree to a certain extent...I don't like strippers with tattoos either!

 

[devilmonx]

I think Whitlock's theory is arguably correct, but he chose a questionable (and in my opinion, incorrect) way ofpresenting/proving it.

Dedicated NBA fans will watch teams that they like play in the playoffs, and won't even notice the tattoos... and if they notice it, it won't turn themoff. Casual NBA fans will tune in when big-name players/teams are playing ("Oh, the Lakers game is on tonight?")... and don't pay attention totattoos either, as long as Kobe, LeBron, the Lakers, Celtics (this year) are playing. There might be a small minorityof television viewers who are flipping through the channels and see the game and think what Whitlock apparently thinks they think: "Hey... these guysdon't have tats, I think I'll continue watching instead of tuning into American Idol." I highly doubt that group is responsible for highertelevision ratings.

For me personally, I'd consider myself an NBA fan. Leaguepass, follow the insiders, follow the teams, follow the offseason. I'm not embarrassed toadmit I didn't catch a single Finals game last year, or very many playoff games after the first round. Why? Because (a) the teams/players I follow weren't playing, and (b) the referee-ing/flopping made the game unwatchable. It's still tough towatch at times, but I think it's been better this year. Perhaps the casual fans feel the same?

- --

On a side note, I'm surprised that people out there are die-hard slamming Whitlock's hypothesis. Sure, in a perfect world people wouldn't judgeothers by what they're wearing, or the color of the skin, or their tattoos, etc.

We don't live in a perfect world. Small tattoos (within reason) are slowly becoming socially acceptable, as evidenced by the number of people who nowsport tramp stamps, or a shoulder tat, or something tribal/celtic. But I'm surprised more people don't admit it or acknowledge the following: When yousee someone covered completely in tats, you're not thinking doctor, or lawyer, or professional. If you're hiring someone for any sort of white-colorjob, you're not getting a great initial impression when the guy hands you his resume and you see his initials tatt'ed on every knuckle. If you'relooking for a nice (note: not synonymous with delicious) family restaurant to eat at, you aren't picking the onethat has the crowd wearing wife-beaters and sporting full-arm tattoos sitting out in front.

If I see Delonte West on the street in a wife-beater, I'm not thinking millionaire athlete. I'm thinking thug or hoodlum, or whatever people callgang-members nowadays.

And that, I think, is what Whitlock is trying to say. Fewer tattoos on the players presents an image a greater percentage of the population can feelcomfortable with. I agree with that.

(Go Lakers!)

 

[sifupooh]

Next time money orders takeout, the chef should give him that special wonton sauce

 

[trueblack88]

Originally Posted by devilmonx

I think Whitlock's theory is arguably correct, but he chose a questionable (and in my opinion, incorrect) way of presenting/proving it.

Dedicated NBA fans will watch teams that they like play in the playoffs, and won't even notice the tattoos... and if they notice it, it won't turn them off. Casual NBA fans will tune in when big-name players/teams are playing ("Oh, the Lakers game is on tonight?")... and don't pay attention to tattoos either, as long as Kobe, LeBron, the Lakers, Celtics (this year) are playing. There might be a small minority of television viewers who are flipping through the channels and see the game and think what Whitlock apparently thinks they think: "Hey... these guys don't have tats, I think I'll continue watching instead of tuning into American Idol." I highly doubt that group is responsible for higher television ratings.

For me personally, I'd consider myself an NBA fan. Leaguepass, follow the insiders, follow the teams, follow the offseason. I'm not embarrassed to admit I didn't catch a single Finals game last year, or very many playoff games after the first round. Why? Because (a) the teams/players I follow weren't playing, and (b) the referee-ing/flopping made the game unwatchable. It's still tough to watch at times, but I think it's been better this year. Perhaps the casual fans feel the same?

- --

On a side note, I'm surprised that people out there are die-hard slamming Whitlock's hypothesis. Sure, in a perfect world people wouldn't judge others by what they're wearing, or the color of the skin, or their tattoos, etc.

We don't live in a perfect world. Small tattoos (within reason) are slowly becoming socially acceptable, as evidenced by the number of people who now sport tramp stamps, or a shoulder tat, or something tribal/celtic. But I'm surprised more people don't admit it or acknowledge the following: When you see someone covered completely in tats, you're not thinking doctor, or lawyer, or professional. If you're hiring someone for any sort of white-color job, you're not getting a great initial impression when the guy hands you his resume and you see his initials tatt'ed on every knuckle. If you're looking for a nice (note: not synonymous with delicious) family restaurant to eat at, you aren't picking the one that has the crowd wearing wife-beaters and sporting full-arm tattoos sitting out in front.

If I see Delonte West on the street in a wife-beater, I'm not thinking millionaire athlete. I'm thinking thug or hoodlum, or whatever people call gang-members nowadays.

And that, I think, is what Whitlock is trying to say. Fewer tattoos on the players presents an image a greater percentage of the population can feel comfortable with. I agree with that.

(Go Lakers!)

The thing is, with the second part of your post, I just don't see it like that. Tattoo's aren't an 'urban' thing. Tattoo's havebeen around for THOUSANDS of years. Kings and queens had them, Egyptian pharaoh's, among other people. Almost all cultures, their ancestors hadtattoo's. This whole notion that tattoo's are the body expression of the criminal and mis-aligned, it doesn't make sense given the history of theworld. Its just ignorance, plain and simple...

And I know PLENTY of people with full-sleeve tattoo's. From shoulder to wrist. Two are teachers, one is a lawyer and the other is in school to be anorthodontist. And thats just people with full sleeves, I know plenty of people who just have small to moderate visible ones as well. And you wouldn't knowunless they wanted you too. Not everyone with tattoo's is going to go out in a wife-beater sporting them. Again, tattoo's are not regulated to'urban' people and they never were...

 

[downtown43]

If you're hiring someone for any sort of white-color job, you're not getting a great initial impression when the guy hands you his resume and you see his initials tatt'ed on every knuckle. If you're looking for a nice (note: not synonymous with delicious) family restaurant to eat at, you aren't picking the one that has the crowd wearing wife-beaters and sporting full-arm tattoos sitting out in front.

If I see Delonte West on the street in a wife-beater, I'm not thinking millionaire athlete. I'm thinking thug or hoodlum, or whatever people call gang-members nowadays.

And that, I think, is what Whitlock is trying to say. Fewer tattoos on the players presents an image a greater percentage of the population can feel comfortable with. I agree with that.

like i said before... there is a sect of American society that is never comfortable with 400 black people in the same place period. the tattoos have nothing todo with that. IMO, it's more with the league being mainly black. many people have spoken on this before.

WAY more viewers/fans are turned away by the amount of blacks in the league than the amount of tattoos in the league.

take away the tattoos, ehh... maybe viewing goes up a couple percentage points. make the league 75% black in proportion to the American population... viewingwill boom, especially among the 35+ demographic.

the tattoos are a minimal factor

 

[devilmonx]

Didn't want to double quote: but I don't think the history of tattoos has a lot to do with how they are perceived today. It doesn't matter who had them thousands of years ago. It doesn't. It only matters who has them now, and the image that they represent today. It doesn't matter if historically tattoos weren't regulated to people in urban areas. Are you telling me that's not the case today?

Yes, tattoos are becoming trendy. Angelina Jolie has a couple, woo. But this is a trend that's started with our generation, not those of anyone above 40.

- - -

Statement A: Definitely false statement: "Most people who have tattoos are also convicts." ("Most" defined as a sizable percentage, callit 25%+)

Statement B: "Most people who are convicts have tattoos."

Hey, look. I've never been in jail. I don't really know that many people who have been in jail. But can you tell me that Statement B is flat-outincorrect? Or that, at the least, people believe it to be correct? That's the problem with tattoos... becausemost people in jail have had tattoos, it makes it the most obvious immediately distinguishable trait for criminals. In the absence of another factor todistinguish them... that's all people have for stereotypes (everybody has them). That's also an image that's spoon-fed to us on television. Ifyou have an actor and he's playing a role of a guy with any kind of criminal history... you better believe he has tattoos. Brad Pitt in Snatch. Hell,Brad Pitt in Ocean's Eleven. So when people see tattoos, if they think criminal... well, I know why they think that. Whitlock does too.

Yes, I know people who have full-sleeve tattoos who are professionals too. One of them graduated Harvard undergrad, and is going to law school here in NYC. But I think you're lying if you tell me that is anywhere close to a representative sample.

 

[gunna get it]

Originally Posted by DOWNTOWN43

If you're hiring someone for any sort of white-color job, you're not getting a great initial impression when the guy hands you his resume and you see his initials tatt'ed on every knuckle. If you're looking for a nice (note: not synonymous with delicious) family restaurant to eat at, you aren't picking the one that has the crowd wearing wife-beaters and sporting full-arm tattoos sitting out in front.

If I see Delonte West on the street in a wife-beater, I'm not thinking millionaire athlete. I'm thinking thug or hoodlum, or whatever people call gang-members nowadays.

And that, I think, is what Whitlock is trying to say. Fewer tattoos on the players presents an image a greater percentage of the population can feel comfortable with. I agree with that.

like i said before... there is a sect of American society that is never comfortable with 400 black people in the same place period. the tattoos have nothing to do with that. IMO, it's more with the league being mainly black. many people have spoken on this before.

WAY more viewers/fans are turned away by the amount of blacks in the league than the amount of tattoos in the league.

take away the tattoos, ehh... maybe viewing goes up a couple percentage points. make the league 75% black in proportion to the American population... viewing will boom, especially among the 35+ demographic.

the tattoos are a minimal factor
Tabernacle.

 

[trueblack88]

Originally Posted by devilmonx

Didn't want to double quote: but I don't think the history of tattoos has a lot to do with how they are perceived today. It doesn't matter who had them thousands of years ago. It doesn't. It only matters who has them now, and the image that they represent today. It doesn't matter if historically tattoos weren't regulated to people in urban areas. Are you telling me that's not the case today?

Yes, tattoos are becoming trendy. Angelina Jolie has a couple, woo. But this is a trend that's started with our generation, not those of anyone above 40.

- - -

Statement A: Definitely false statement: "Most people who have tattoos are also convicts." ("Most" defined as a sizable percentage, call it 25%+)

Statement B: "Most people who are convicts have tattoos."

Hey, look. I've never been in jail. I don't really know that many people who have been in jail. But can you tell me that Statement B is flat-out incorrect? Or that, at the least, people believe it to be correct? That's the problem with tattoos... because most people in jail have had tattoos, it makes it the most obvious immediately distinguishable trait for criminals. In the absence of another factor to distinguish them... that's all people have for stereotypes (everybody has them). That's also an image that's spoon-fed to us on television. If you have an actor and he's playing a role of a guy with any kind of criminal history... you better believe he has tattoos. Brad Pitt in Snatch. Hell, Brad Pitt in Ocean's Eleven. So I think the when people see tattoos, if they think criminal... well, I know why they think that.

Yes, I know people who have full-sleeve tattoos who are professionals too. One of them graduated Harvard undergrad, and is going to law school here in NYC. But I think you're lying if you tell me that is anywhere close to a representative sample.

1) The history of tattoo's IS relevant today. People are basing these ignorant opinions on things that simply aren't true. How can you know NOTHING(which most critics don't) of where tattoo's come from or what they mean to individuals and make an EDUCATED opinion? You can't. You simplycan't...

2) Tattoo's AREN'T more populace in 'urban' area's. Tattoo's in America were popularized by Whites, first. And really, the industrystill is. Blacks DEFINIETLY are making a splash but the industry is still dominated by Whites. Its still "their" market on a grand-scale...

3) I'm not denying that tattoo's have BECOME something of a trade-mark for certain criminal sects in prison and jails. However, you have to look atwhy they did and where that culture became large on the inside. And to know that, you need to know the history and travel of the tattoo culture. So once again,a person can't even comment on the prison tattoo culture without knowing the entire tattoo culture and its history. If you want to look at it, there'san overwhelming number of Black men in jail (proportionally), should people stereotype and assume all Black men are convicts? It just doesn't make senseone way or another...

I'm just so sick of this whole tattoo thing being blown into something its not. And yes, I have a 'professional' job, I'm in a University,so are my friends, so we may not be the 'representative' sample of tattooed people but neither are criminals or convicts or 'thugs'. I knowpeople stereotype and judge, I've known that since my black self came out of my mothers womb. But I'm not going to just sit around and let someone makea stupid comment on my watch if I can help it. And thats not in relation to you, just Whitlocks article which had me heated, lol...

 

[kingpin2321]

When going to the poll on that ESPN article. 50% say they are bothered by the tattoos

 

[devilmonx]

The reason why I don't think history is that relevant here is because... there aren't any pharaohs anymore. Or kings with tattoos. So whether or notkings or pharaohs had them 3000 years ago is not that relevant to how people perceive them today. What has greaterrelevance t is who has tattoos today. And people associate tattoos with criminals today. Why? Because criminals have tattoos today. If all of a sudden CEOsand board members started getting tattoos... and that continued for 30 or 40 years, then that would be more relevant to society's perception in 2048. I'm not saying that's right, or wrong, but I'm saying that's how it is, and I can see where that perception comes from.

Anyway, I'm off this topic since I don't want to thread hijack. I think Whitlock is kind of ridiculous to be honest, he has a few drops of decentpoints but buries them in anti-black rhetoric. Yes, he's making it out to something he's not.

If he has a positive message to the black youth of America today (and that's a big IF) it might just be the following: be wary of who you see and emulate,just because Delonte West (I'm picking on him, sorry DW) has tattoos everywhere... he can live with it because aprofessional basketball player. You might not be. You might want to be a white-collar "professional"... and what works for him in the NBA won'twork in that world. Understand that the world will expect you to sacrifice your individuality at times.

 

[trueblack88]

Originally Posted by devilmonx

The reason why I don't think history is that relevant here is because... there aren't any pharaohs anymore. Or kings with tattoos. So whether or not kings or pharaohs had them 3000 years ago is not that relevant to how people perceive them today. What has greater relevance t is who has tattoos today. And people associate tattoos with criminals today. Why? Because criminals have tattoos today. If all of a sudden CEOs and board members started getting tattoos... and that continued for 30 or 40 years, then that would be more relevant to society's perception in 2048. I'm not saying that's right, or wrong, but I'm saying that's how it is, and I can see where that perception comes from.

Anyway, I'm off this topic since I don't want to thread hijack. I think Whitlock is kind of ridiculous to be honest, he has a few drops of decent points but buries them in anti-black rhetoric. Yes, he's making it out to something he's not.

If he has a positive message to the black youth of America today (and that's a big IF) it might just be the following: be wary of who you see and emulate, just because Delonte West (I'm picking on him, sorry DW) has tattoos everywhere... he can live with it because a professional basketball player. You might not be. You might want to be a white-collar "professional"... and what works for him in the NBA won't work in that world. Understand that the world will expect you to sacrifice your individuality at times.

1) Yes, Kings and Pharoahs are not around in the sense they were before as I am referencing them. However, when people TODAY seek to talk down on peoplewith tattoo's, they need to realize that they are not the marking of criminals of scoundrels of low-life's. Historically, thats not true and its nottrue today either...

2) Also, again, because people in jail have tattoo's, that doesn't mean ALL people that have tattoo's are criminals. Like I said before, THATSprecisely why it would be important for a person to know the entire scope of where tattoo's come from before they make assumptions. Again like I saidbefore, not all convicts are Black but a disproportionate amount of people in jail are Black. Should all Black males be considered thugs and criminals thentoo? I mean, why stop at tattoos?

3) I agree, hand, neck and face tattoo's are a no-no. If you want to be sleeved, thats easy to conceal with a long-sleeve shirt and if you have a'corporate' job, you will be in a long-sleeve shirt at all times so its a non-issue. You can still have "lots" of tattoos and be able to findwork and be accepted by the masses...

 

[75 partly cloudy]

I wonder how he feels about And 1 basketball.... do their tattoos matter Jason?

Or is it because "white people" watch the NBA it matters?? Do you care about the reason young black males get ink in their skin orjust their entertainment value?

why don't you just buy em when they are young, seperate them from their parents......

Dude is a clown.

 

[worldbeefreeg]

I actually like Jason Whitlock. He is a smart guy and most of the time he is right. He is making a good point but he is doing it in the wrong way. Ill TakeJason whitlock over a glorified moron who is a race baiter/conspirator like Scoop Jackson. GOd i hate Scoop Jackson.

 

[addictedtofreshkicks]

its true... some of the players in the NBA really look ridiculous with the amount of tattoos they have

 

[joseph camel jr]

Originally Posted by Q46totheE

Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr

Originally Posted by Q46totheE

As much as all of you and I don't care, I bet much of the older NBA viewers (i.e. the ones buying the season tickets and purchasing all the merchandise) do. So this guy may be correct. I bet the NBA WOULD appeal to more people if the players weren't tattooed and were friendlier. Not saying the NBA should implement any sort of tattoo rule, but this guy has a point.

I totally fail to see that point...first off, where are the statistics of the NBA's declining popularity? Also, look at the jersey sales (you mentioned merchandise purchases) from 06-07.

1. Kobe = tattoos, questionable character
2. Dwayne Wade
3. LeBron James = Tattoos
4. Allen Iverson = Tattoos, questionable character
5. Steve Nash
6. Carmelo Anthony = tattoos, questionable character
7. Stephon Marbury = tattoos, questionable character
8. Dirk
9. Gilbert Arenas = Tattoos
10. Vince Carter

I never said the NBA was declining in popularity. I also don't see where you think I did.

Also...the raking of jersey sales by player are kind of irrelevant...whose jersey are they supposed to be buying, all those nice, well-mannered, tattoo-less American superstars that are just taking over the NBA these days?

Do you really think that if the players in the NBA today lost the attitude and the tattoos that it WOULDN'T appeal to more people, particularly the crowd that any business wants to attract (the middle- and upper-classes)?

When I said I failed to see the point, I was talking about your last line where you said Whitlock had one.

and no, you didn't mention that the NBA was declining in popularity, but I brought up that point because it isn't hurting for viewers or people who buy things with an NBA logo on it. You DID insinuate that the NBA could potentially be more marketable if it's players had "less" attitude and ink. The NBA is talking about expanding to Europe amongst other things. The league will not lose viewers or fans due to what tats it's employees rock on the hardwood.....Anyways, most of the guys in the top 10 of jersey sales have tats/questionable character. These are obviously traits that people ignore when shelling out cash for an item with their name on the back. It's not irrelevant to the discussion when you are the one who brought up people buying merchandise.

*Also, can you name me one sport where most of it's athletes DON'T have tats, and still appeals to a large portion of a population?

The image problem that Whitlock keeps digging at is based solely on the fact that he views many of it's stars as "thugs." Lebron James is EXACTLY what the business world wants and he has many of the characteristics that Jason Whitlock has a complete disdain for...

it's a new era in professional sports. Individualism is accepted, and no one really gives two looks at a guy with a new tat. It's not the same as when Dennis Rodman showed up in Detroit/San Antonio with a wide variety of tattos and haircolors. Lebron will be a billionaire and is going to be the most marketable star since Mike left. He represents the "new" NBA athlete and the direction the league has gone. There is nothing you can do about it, and the league will NOT lose viewers or fans no matter what.


I agree with you for the most part.


But a large part of LeBron's marketability, aside from his tremendous talent, is his personality. He's, at least in the public eye, friendly, funny,engaging, and polite, with a good dash of humor and "spark" to make things interesting.
At the end of the day, guys are still going to selljerseys, the game will get more popular. Yes. But it would probably grow at a faster pace, and more jerseys would get sold, if the stars seemed moreaccessible, if they had better personalities, if they didn't come across (whether fairly or not) as "thugs." Of course a tattoo or twodoesn't reveal the character of a person, but try telling that to your average 50 year old.