John Wesley Jermyn has been a fixture in West Los Angeles for more than 20 years. Nicknamed "The Crazy Robertson" and "The Robertson Dancer," he is a constant presence on a stretch of Robertson Boulevard that has become the city's trendiest shopping corridor and a prime strolling spot for tourists and movie stars...In a plot twist worthy of Tinseltown, Mr. Jermyn now has a clothing label named after him. Since it was introduced last month, "The Crazy Robertson" brand of T-shirts and sweatshirts, created by a trio of 23-year-olds, has flown off the shelves at Kitson, a haunt of tabloid stars like Paris Hilton...The apparel includes logos such as "no money, no problems." They have a MySpace page featuring the guy, though it also promotes their nightclub and the brand itself. The homeless guy's sister says the man has schizophrenia and objects to the deal.
In May, Mr. Jermyn agreed to a deal that entitles him to 5% of "net profit" from clothing sales, according to a copy of the contract seen by The Wall Street Journal. He signed the contract, without speaking to an attorney or family members. But so far he has refused to accept much cash, preferring to be paid in food, liquor and paper for his art projects, according to Teddy Hirsh, one of the label's founders. "He tries not to involve money in his daily life," says Mr. Hirsh, who says he is Mr. Jermyn's agent and manager for future endeavors.
What do you think? Brilliant marketing strategy while doing good or exploitation of a guy without any kind of institutional protection?
5 comments:
I think this is a brilliant marketing strategy in the idea itself, but not given the context. I think when the trio had the idea, they probably thought there was no way they could go wrong. They were helping a homeless guy, connecting a bunch of people who were familiar with "The Crazy Robertson" and earning a profit. However, although the intentions may have been partially good, there are a lot of other factors that need to be considered. If the Mr. Jermyn does indeed have schizophrenia, or any mental condition for that matter, the deal should be out of the question. And even if he does not, the fact that his condition is questionable or unknown should be reason enough to stop the pursuit of this clothing line. For some reason, in thinking about this subject, I keep coming back to the William Hung-American Idol deal. Although Hung agreed to the exploitation of his singing and his personality, I still couldn’t help but shake my head at the entire situation. It’s really sad to me the way that people will take advantage of individuals (willing or unwilling) for a profit scheme. Yes, Hung earned money from his “fame,” but it was all a big joke. Yes, Jermyn is gaining popularity and earning some sense of a profit, but also at an expense. People don’t like him for him, they like him for being the crazy guy on Robertson Street. Can people really be proud of a marketing strategy that is based off of assumptions of who a man is? Something about the whole thing has me feeling very skeptical. I can see some group doing this sort of this with the “Piccolo Man” on State Street…
-Elli
This business deal is quite unethical if the men did not INSIST on the man having legal representation. And I believe this differs considerably from the William Hung-American Idol situation. As far as I know, William Hung does not suffer from mental problems. Therefore, unlike “The Crazy Robertson,” Hung is aware of the nature of his fame. This man may have no rational idea of what is happening and how he is being used. He is an easy target and the guys are absolutely taking advantage of the situation. It reminds me of old fashioned freak shows - You wonder how willing the people being exhibited were. The trio of 23-year-olds seem like a modern P.T. Barnum – great money-making idea, but how do they sleep at night?
While I think this is a brilliant marketing strategy, I have some reservations about it due to the lingering question of Mr. Jermyn's mental illness. While I feel Mr. Hirsh and his partners have taken the appropriate steps in forging the brand (I also don't think they are explicitly trying to exploit him), I feel some sort of professional evaluation of Mr. Jermyn needs to be done before any trademarking of "The Crazy Robertson" is done.
I found this article particularly interesting because it related so well to a topic that was discussed in J646(mass media and the consumer) last semester, namely the process of coolhunting and those who practice it. The jist of cool hunting can be described as marketing professionals whose job it is to make observations and predictions in changes of new or existing cultural trends (thanks wikipedia).
Basically these marketers head out into urban environments (or whenever the hunt is taking place) and search out the trendiest individuals (or whatever target demographic they are after) and take note of their favorite products and/or unique style. This is then repackaged and sold to the masses, often reaping huge profits. However, much has been written about the ethical questions surrounding the commodification of these people's interesting, particularly when the cool-hunting occurs in low income urban environments.
While the case of Mr. Jermyn is obviously unique, I think it is the perfect example of how far cool-hunting marketers are willing to go in their effort to create or maintain a hip brand image. With niche-marketing (in this to hip Hollywood socialites) continually increasing, i think this is a trend that shows no signs of slowing down, for better or worse.
A few things:
The guys that started the brand are obviously very smart, very intune with trends and marketing, and very astute at finding and exploiting an open opportunity.
I can definitely see this happening with any of the State St personalities - people already dress up as the Piccolo Man or Scanner Dan for Halloween.
What bothers me is that this is a man who obviously has a specific lifestyle in mind and specific ideology that he lives by. It seems that he would absolutely disagree with what is exactly happening to him. Here is a man that lives by "no money, no problems" and tries to keep money out of his life, and two men come and bring money into his life and make money themselves. I'm surprised, actually, that he would make any kind of agreement with them as he did.
I'm bothered that marketers can't leave things to be appreciated for what they are and leave it alone. Why must we have "Freakfest presented by Mountain Dew"? Why are there more chain-stores or franchises on State St now than independent businesses? Exploitation (in my experiences) of unique or eccentric people or places has mostly led to its own demise.
Personally, I have no problem with the marketing strategy implemented by the trio of 23-year-olds and I don't see why anybody should. I believe that Mr. Jermyn, and Mr. Jermyn alone, should have the right to decide whether or not it's alright for the group to use his celebrity to brand a product. By accepting the gifts of liquor, food and papers, Mr. Jermyn has given his approval to the trio.
If his sister is so concerned about his possible disease and the exploitation of his personality, then I think she should be helping him out, and not letting him remain homeless. Maybe then she'd be at his side when he was to sign any such documents.
Come to think about it, I think I'm going to head to State Street right now and recruit Scanner Dan and Piccolo Pete to concoct an apparel design to implement at Urban Outfitters. Haha, just kidding, but seriously...
Post a Comment