Turned on my computer this morning and saw Heather Mitts staring at me from my msn homepage. This is the article it was linked to: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/hays/030822.html?partnersite=espn Not a good article for the obvious reasons- sterotypes abound but there is a really interesting poll with interesting (though not surprising) results. Is it true that even negative (sexist) press is good press?? Not surprising it was Mitts they were selling then.....
There's another part of that article that might be more important. People cheer for Mia Hamm and Brandi Chastain, and from what I could tell in at least one live match this year, don't always recognize the rest. The NBA draws 2 ratings, except when Shaq and Kobe's Lakers are on- then there's at least a 4 rating. WUSA needs stars. So does MLS (note on that- one Freddy Adu won't do it, but 10 might). Julie Foudy may get commercials, but Chastain got where she is by doing something outrageous ON the field, when a lot of people were watching. Keep working at it, folks.
This article is nothing we haven't heard a million times already. And it is written with that oh-so-attractive cynicism/sarcasm that is the hallmark of all things ESPN. The real question is why women and men have not responded to WUSA (a very competitive league with an entertaining, high quality, product -- I really enjoy it and think, marketed correctly, it could expand its niche) and WNBA in any great numbers. But this anecdote just floored me. I was stunned to hear Tony DiCicco, in an interview on the San Diego soccer talk show, say that since female soccer players don't like to watch soccer games on TV, he had to radically cut down the tapes he wanted to show his team. If members of the WNT don't like to watch soccer (at least on TV), maybe Tony should have told that story to the WUSA business planners.
Anson Dorrance relayed a similar experience with his players. I can't remember the exact quote, but it was something along the lines (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) of his players didn't want to go to WUSA games.
Here's one quote: "After all, who would want to watch UConn-Duke women battle for No. 1 when the Bulls and Warriors are about to tip off?" I, for one, would take UConn-Duke. The Bulls and Warriors can't make threes, can't make a layup, and play basketball in a way that makes you question whether The Snow Man had made his way back into the locker room after leaving sometime in the early 80s. UConn and Duke play an earnest, up-tempo game. And Sue Bird is hella cute.
True, but you won't find her while watching a UConn - Duke game. Men will watch, if the quality is there and the marketing right. The message in gearing women's sports advertising towards men has to be relatively straightforward. Watch us play, and you'll see great games. Yes, having hot female athletes helps sell the games. But the hotness has to be sold simply by showing the athletes in action. Otherwise, the ploy backfires (and many wives rebel against their husbands watching!). Also, there can be no moralizing. Men do not have an obligation to watch women's sports. They do not have an obligation to watch women's sports simply because Title IX was once not the law of the land. They don't have to watch women's sports to correct an "imbalance" in media coverage or rectify past lack of opportunity for female athletes. They do not have an obligation to watch to display some kind of "affirmative action" for women's sports watching. Women who play have to make it worthwhile for men who are sports fans to watch. It is doable. It has been done in soccer (see WWC '99, where the marketing followed these rules to a T). It has been ignored by those marketing the WUSA; the results speak for themselves. It can be done again. Let's see if those who make these decisions are prepared to learn from past successes and mistakes.
Deconstruct this BS The "men" they are refering to are mostly white males 18 to 34. So everything ESPN does starts out with underlying sexist, ageist and racist underpinnings. If ESPN did not have to deliver a product -- white males 18 to 34 -- it would have to cover sports as news. They don't because these hormonal numb nuts they are desperate to deliver to their advertisers posses neither brains or even curriosity. So, do what the non brain dead do. Watch FSW, read Big Soccer boards, get Galavision and Univision, attend as many sport of your liking as you can, and stay out in front of the trends. Its called being cool, and not caring what the nimrods think or do.
I'll come right out and say it. One of the primary reasons I've had trouble watching / getting into the WUSA is because of the repeated male bashing that goes on in connection with that league. In the last year, I've heard falling attendences blamed on everything masculine. I loved the WWC99 team, a lot, and I understand they have some greivances with the USSF... but taking those greivances and blaming it on all the men of the world without concern for the marketing aspect of it (all sports as of late have suffered from sports dilution) is asinine and unfair, and in the long run, chases off us sports fans who want to put soccer first and gender second.
Women must watch women's sports - Then men will follow I have an anecdote relevant to this post- Minutes before the US - ENGLAND WNT game in Birmingham, Alabama I was in a restaurant in Long Island. The place had a TV set up over the "Bar". Next to me was a girls youth soccer team. I wanted the place to put on the WNT game, the girls on the soccer team were totaly uninterested! What this says to me is two things. Women must lead and establish a pattern of watching as well as playing sports. This takes time to occur. Secondly, Most men, at the present time, will not watch women play sports. We live in conservative times in watch aggressive outfront women are unfairly scorned by the Male establishment (i said the male establishment not all men). Successful Female athletes are actually looked down upon, and are relegated to olympic and world cup coverage secure in the male establishments knowledge that after the special event is over we can forget about them. Tennis has decided not to market its best players (THe williams sisters etc-racism is also a factor here) but features underachievers like ANNA -non-threatening and marketed for their sex appeal not their backhands. Prediction- Women watching women's sports in the future will be the key to the success of fe male spectator sports.
Some, though not all, of what the author mentioned could apply to soccer in general (and many other sports), not just WUSA and not just women's sports. One of the main things that hurt women's sports leagues is what hurts all new sports leagues. They aren't part of the established routine in the wider US sports media. If you're a new league you're in for a very very difficult time, and to a large degree it doesn't matter whether your league features women or men.
Re: Women must watch women's sports - Then men will follow Tennis, mens and womens, is also hugely popular all over the world. Arguably second only to soccer. Also, "underachievers like Anna" are marketed because they are non-threatening and for sex appeal? Besides Anna who? She's clearly a unique case.
Most American sports fans, men or women, watch sports that have been "established" for decades. Once you get past these and look at other sports (track, swimming, skiing, volleyball, handball, gymnastics, etc) there is very little difference between the popularity of womens and mens versions of these sports. If male versions of sports were more popular than female versions of the same sports across the board than I would be more inclined to think that there is a definite preference among all sports fans to watch men. Just about the only womens sport in that, in this country, has a long history of being imbedded in popular consciousness is tennis. And women's tennis is roughly as popular as mens tennis here.
Threads merged. True It's wise-guy know-it-all journalism raised to its highest level. If there's any insight in that article, it's purely an accident. The article probably missed a major reason few people watched the WUSA final - few people even know the WUSA exists.
MLS did not do well at first. Wait another four years before you compare WUSA's success to the success of MLS today. The disappointing thing for me about the WUSA is that it repeated some of MLS' early mistakes.
I think the future of MLS is bright. And the present is getting better. But right now the league (by all accounts I've heard) is still losing money. I don't think that can be classified as "doing well", even if future prospects are better.
And the naysayers said all the same things about MLS. This isn't about MLS, but MLS redefined itself in year five. WUSA is apparently going to redefine itself in year four.
In a few years (probably around five) MLS should be making a profit. From the article I gave a link too: "With Dallas already green-lighted to build their new stadium - to be opened in time for the 2005 season - added to plans at various stages for Chicago, DC United, Colorado and the MetroStars, the overall financial viability of MLS is showing an upward curve, one that is not going un-noticed by potential new investors, such as Chivas owner Jose Vegara, and Denver billionaire Stan Kroenke, who have both signed up with MLS in deals to be announced shortly." I think in 20 year MLS will overtake NHL in popularity and maybe get ahead of MLB in about 50 years.
WUSA has no choice BUT to redefine itself. The founders are retiring, the teams are going to franchise owned, the TV rights are going away, the sponsors are worried that the ratings won't be there (and some are just finishing getting the payback for missing the 1.0 prediction), and the fans aren't coming. Something is going to have to be redefined in year four or its all over now. Jarrod
I'll admit I can't be certain about WUSA not being here in four years. But I just don't see anyway they can make a profit. Both their rattings and attendance are down. Keep in mind this league was built on the belief that they would get certain rattings. When they missed that mark miserably, ( by as much as 90% in some markets), their fate was pretty much sealed. It was (is) just a matter of time.