Tennis Twitter is
always a very special place to be. Before there was tennis twitter, there
were blogs where one could go and become a keyboard warrior. Then there were
sites (Tennis Forum/General Messages anyone?) where there were long threads
discussing who or who was not popular or marketable in tennis. I have been
thinking about this phenomenon for quite some time. I have some thoughts.
For years, Wall Street
and tennis journalists, who are paid to upsell players, told us that the
Williams Sisters were not popular. According to them, Sharapova was the most
popular player in tennis because of her marketability. They spoke ad nauseam
about her endorsement deals. She was always the blonde, blue-eyed girl featured
on magazines. For them, Sharapova was objectively the most beautiful. I did not
mind because, aside from the doping scandal that became known late in her
career, she knew how to step up on the big stages and win.
Still, despite the
Williams Sisters also winning on the court, advertisers and marketing folks
claimed they didn’t possess the IT factor, which begs the question: what are
the qualities that makes a player stand out and attract marketing dollars?
There was a time when
Justine Henin was touted as the face of tennis (yes, you can stop laughing).
She had an aesthetically pleasing game (meaning she could hit a slice
backhand), she was non-controversial (forget that 2003 French Open hand) and
she did not grunt. Yet, while Henin was racking up big titles, the media
mostly focused on her fellow Belgian, Kim Clijsters. To them, Clijsters
was the girl next door. So what if she complained every day about
injuries and the rigours of life on Tour? Players sympathized with her and
found her more relatable than they did Henin.
In the early 90s, the
player who got most of the significant write up was Steffi Graf. She did
not love the limelight, but she won big tournaments and had an aesthetically
pleasing game. Her nemesis during that time was Seles. Seles was a
grunter and a big hitter of the ball. I don’t recall if she garnered much
in the way of endorsements, except for this American
Express ad. So, even though Seles was the dominant player, few
people saw her as marketable compared to Graf. Oddly enough, Seles was one of
Venus Williams’ favorites to watch because of her brashness and boldness on
court. I wonder why she wasn’t deemed marketable along with her on-court
dominance?
In more recent history,
Simona Halep is without a doubt a very successful player. 2 Grand Slam
titles, a stint at number one, nice eyes, and a celebrity coach in her corner
in Darren Cahill. I don’t believe Halep garnered much in the way of
sponsorship aside from being hailed a hero in her home country. There was little
talk of her being able to move product. While I recall people saying that of
Genie Bouchard, who is now only known for two things: suing and winning against
the USTA and have her status of active or retired being a constant question.
Marketers immediately saw Bouchard as being able to move product despite achieving
very little in terms of her tennis compared to Halep.
Lastly, we come to the
recently retired Ashleigh Barty. Now, if there was ever a player who has
seemingly done little to promote the sport of tennis outside of Australia, or
indeed been a marketer's dream, it would be Barty. For someone like me who is a
huge fan of the women's game, there were times when I literally had to pull up
the WTA website to recall who was number 1 during her reign. Farewell Barty, we
barely knew you. However, as a player, she rarely had a challenger on
court. Barty, much like many of the women in the recent top 10 have for one
reason or another failed to capture the public’s attention or imagination. Like
many of their predecessors, they may achieve great things on court but
marketers do not come to their door. Clearly, for women, marketing has less to
do with your tennis prowess and more to do with whether you fit other people’s
idea of what it means to be a woman or an athlete.
Naomi Osaka could easily
be the marriage of both on-court dominance and off-court marketing gold. Yet,
she seems to be struggling to manage both. As marketable as she may be, I doubt
that Osaka will ever feel confident enough to be the face of tennis and women's
tennis.
The new World No. 1 as
of Monday next will be Iga Swiatek. A young Pole who plays fierce tennis
and who lists her tennis idol as Rafael Nadal (go equality). The argument
in tennis circles is that Emma Raducanu has outpaced Iga in terms of marketing
while achieving relatively little in her career. As I have shown already,
on-court dominance has rarely had much to do with marketability for women
players. Emma’s case is particularly easy to understand. Well, for one
Emma is from the UK- a country with a very rich tennis history who is eager to
keep that crown. Duh. In addition, even if folks do not like to
admit it, she did win a Major without dropping a set while also playing
qualifying. That’s one for the history books. Frankly, Emma is to the UK what
Osaka is to Japan (and the US as well). She is of mixed heritage, which
means advertisers and marketers get a two-fer. Meanwhile, Iga does not
seem to rate as possessing anything to captivate a buying public’s fantasy.
Maybe if she was taller, blonde or spoke less about her mental challenges?
One thing is clear; the
issue of popularity is a very complicated one because it is not necessarily
objective. While Barty might not have been particularly marketable, she was
very effective at putting seats in the stands. Whether that is because of
her no-nonsense playing style or the fact that she is from a country, that is
English speaking or that she is a "nice" girl, folks just warmed to
her. The same goes for Leylah Fernandez, a player that fired up New York
during 7 rounds of tennis at the US Open. Leylah continues to have a
following even though she lost in New York City. Just watch any of her matches
in Mexico. She plays fearless tennis for someone so small and you just
want to root for her. As fans, she is a welcome sight. For me, Raducanu
not so much. It feels like Raducanu is more of a marketer’s dream of a
tennis player than someone who draws fans in by virtue of her on-court play.
Where have we seen that before?
Still none of this will
matter very much if we do not deal with the issue of accessibility of the
women's Tour. Earlier in the season when there were no WTA tournaments, I
decided to tune in to the ATP and see what was happening. I don't have a
subscription to TennisTV, but on my local ESPN, I found men's tennis. Two
courts from tournaments in Argentina and Brazil. I was able to watch the
farewell tournament for Del Potro. I came away from both tournaments becoming a
fan of Diego Schwartzman.
For me, that is the WTA's
biggest issue, not who happens to be popular this week or this month.
Yes, there is WTATV, but it is not a user-friendly platform. How is it
possible that in this day and age you literally have the biggest women's sport
in the world providing live streaming via a web portal that is as clunky and
inefficient as the WTA's own website?!
If you can't see players
and become fans of their games, why would I spend money to watch them
live? Why are tournaments being played that are not being carried live on
the WTA's own streaming platform? Why is it that when matches are being played,
unless some controversy erupts there is little or no commentary on social media
apart from giving scores, which is few and far between?
In order for players to
capture the imagination of fans and make us want more, there has to be a certain
je ne sais quoi. A little something different. It is not always about the
tennis. In these days, people can tune out, but if we give them something
a little bit more, they will come. In the words of Jimmy Connors "this is
what they came for".
