Hip-hop is mainstream. It’s what pop music is. It’s a HUGE juggernaut for business. The President mentioned a hip-hop artist recently in a speech regarding his campaign for re-election. But even in 2012 it still intimidates some. New York Post writer Phil Mushnick’s column contained a few thoughts about partial owner Jay-Z’s involvement with the marketing of the re-branded Brooklyn Nets.
“As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?
Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!”
I’m really curious as to how he developed this idea of what the “full Jay-Z treatment” consists of. Jay is also a husband and a father, could that be the treatment? Where is this stemming from? Jay-Z has created a multi-million dollar empire which encompasses clubs, clothing lines, liquor, talent management and yes, music. Because he’s a rapper he can’t offer more? Because he’s a rapper he can’t be diverse? Because he’s a rapper you automatically feel “ghetto-cized” by his involvement?
Do you feel that way about actors too? What about owners with a shady past or convictions involving discrimination i.e. Donald Sterling. Probably not as it appears he’s probably on board a similar thought train as yourself.
I’m a believer in freedom of speech and truthfully, I prefer my racists out in the open BUT, if you’re going to kick these suggestions out, offer some sort of concrete reasoning as to why this makes sense. And don’t just point to his music as I’ve given several other examples (and more current ones to boot) that sort of make that argument obsolete.