No, You Can't Show Off That Temporary Tattoo: Nick Symmonds vs USATF

The vast majority of you have never heard of Nick Symmonds, and he is not okay with that. Unlike most other professional runners, he is greatly concerned with things beyond running--so much so that his company sued USA Track and Field, the national governing body for road, track, and trail races. Why did he do it? What does it have to do with critical thinking? Let me explain.

You don't think critically at this point in a race

Symmonds has always been an unusual figure in the running world. Unlike most pro runners, who starred for powerhouse programs like Oregon and Texas in college or went pro out of high school, Symmonds ran for Division 3 Willamette, putting up fast times in races that even most track fans weren't paying much attention to. He burst onto the scene by winning the 800 meters at the U.S. Olympic trials in 2008 and has since won a silver medal at the track world championships and run the third fastest 800 ever by an American--yet still he does not fit the mold.

For quite a while now, Symmonds has been locked in a battle with USATF and its primary sponsor, Nike, over his and other athletes' ability to advertise whatever companies they wish. In 2012, Symmonds auctioned off a piece of his shoulder for a temporary tattoo, and Hanson Dodge paid him $11,100 for the privilege. However, there was a problem: USATF and International Olympic Committee rules forced him to cover up the tattoo at competitions they hosted.

What's that tape on your shoulder?

Last summer, Symmonds' conflict with the powers that be came to a climax: the apparel limitations USATF placed on athletes were so strict that Symmonds refused to sign their contract and stayed home during the world championships even though he had won another USA 800 title. The consequences of that decision have not stopped him from continuing to push the boundaries of the advertising rules: he sold a piece of his shoulder to T Mobile for $21,800 and just had a lawsuit that sought to allow all companies to compete for space on athletes' bodies dismissed. 

So what does all this track stuff have to do with critical analysis of media? I think that Symmonds' efforts represent a rare instance of openness about what the purpose of advertising is. The lawsuit focused on fairness to advertisers, allowing all companies an equal shot at putting their name out there, but Symmonds makes no secret of the fact that his interest in the matter is a little different. Pro runners not named Usain Bolt don't make anywhere near as much money as basketball or baseball players, so they need advertising to keep a steady income. They are not alone in this regard; it is the openness that sets Symmonds apart.

The Persuaders discusses the quiet, somewhat uncomfortable alliance between TV and advertising; neither entity completely trusts or understands the other, and they do not want to be too open about how much advertising has crept into TV, but they need each other to stay afloat. That same dynamic now exists in magazines and all kinds of websites; in the digital age, you need sponsorships to survive, yet still sponsored content carries a negative connotation. Perhaps as time passes and product placement becomes so obvious and so omnipresent that you cannot ignore it everywhere, things will change: perhaps Nick Symmonds' advertising-positive attitude is the future.