Women's sport at the professional level is caught in the commercial vicious circle faced by many endeavors in the initial stages of its life-cycle ( we could argue about women's sports being in their infancy but for the sake of today's post, let's assume they are).
The perception of low mainstream or wide range appeal leads to lower interest in investing in women's sports, however as there is lower investment, it reduces the chances for women's sport to reach a larger audience. The legitimacy of this perception is borne out of figures that appear to show a stilted progression in a sector with untapped potential. However, like with many viscous circle situations, something has to change based on a leap of faith, in order to change to outcome. So which might ensure a sustainable long term growth of women's sports ? Should investment be increased so the opportunity to reach a wider audience is possible or must it be proven that there is wide range appeal so that investors are willing to pull out their wallets? In my opinion, in this chicken-and-egg ( another cliché term) scenario, media coverage of women’s sport attracts commercial backing, rather than the other way round. There remains a perception that women's sports on the whole not "as good" as men's sports , as if to reason that men's sports are the benchmark for quality. It assumes that women's sports are somehow a water downed version of the male equivalent. However, why the need to compare ? Here is Canada, each holiday period around Christmas, the World Junior hockey championships attract a huge viewership and interest, but isn't junior hockey a lower caliber version of the pros or NHL ? Ask hockey fans and they will tell you it's different, it's a unique, event driven competition. Ok, so what about junior hockey on the whole, or NCAA sports like football, basketball or to a lesser degree hockey, why do they draw such significant interest and support, when they are themselves, lower quality versions of the professional leagues. My thought, simply that they address the interest of specific groups of sports viewers and sports fans. So why can't women's sports do the same thing ? Unless once assumes that everyone ( and by everyone I mean all males and females of all ages) only prefer watching men's sports, or pros sports ( which my examples above dispute), then one should arrive at the conclusion that there is an audience for women's sports, professional, national team competitions and event driven completions like the Olympics. When it comes to women's sports, it is not about improving the standard of sport. It is about continuing to improve the profile of women’s sport. Humbly, I would add that everyone has a role to play in this: broadcasters, commercial sponsors and, in particular, the sports themselves and how they market themselves and target desired viewership. One path is to ensure regular exposure for a women’s sports properly to enable it to develop story lines throughout a season. When sports are event driven, it generates interest in the moment for reasons beyond the sport, the tie in with men's sports, nationalistic pride, and to some extent the scarcity of the Olympics itself generates interest. If the games took place every year, would they still generate the same interest and investment ? I am pretty sure the answer is no. For women's sport to grow, they need to ensure there is a regular schedule of high-quality events and competitions outside of the usual spike of interest around major tournaments ( Olympics or World Cups), giving sports fans the opportunity to engage with the teams and athletes which leads to a sustained interest. Investment is about putting in money, to make money. So we can’t expect broadcasters to shoulder the cost of expensive sports production if perceived demand and potential return isn’t there. We can’t expect the media to pick up and televise a bad product just for moral reasons. I actually think that would only serve to make things worse, However, the media makes choices that can have an impact on interest and will often choose obtuse ‘sports’, darts, mini-putt, national spelling bee, lumberjack or firefighter completions, for example, when women’s sports such as soccer, hockey and basketball would garner greater viewership ( or at least I think I am safe in saying they would. Keep in mind though, that with the advent of various technological platforms, then neither should we consider that broadcasters are the only route to content distribution either. If solid progress is being made in terms of coverage of women’s sport, it has not yet been illustrated by hard figures, even though the appetite for women’s sport is increasing. Try and research the highest earning female athletes and I would guess that tennis players make up a bulk of the top 10 or 15. Ok I don't need to guess, I actually looked it up. And who might the non-tennis players in the group include, Danica Patrick and Rhonda Roussey to name a couple. So what do these athletes have in common ? Tennis, NASCAR and MMA, have a direct tie in to men's sport. It is also a myth hat only women will watch women’s sport and it’s important that rights-holders and broadcasters recognize that. I tried googling some research date and I found a reference ( Research Agency Sportswise October 2015) to a study that 72 per cent of men and 70 per cent of women are interested in elite women’s sport, while 57 per cent of men and 55 per cent of women are more interested in women’s sport than they were in a few years earlier. So this was in 2015, I would be interested to find some more up to date figures ( still looking). While the popularity of certain women’s sports events is also driving real financial returns. However, women's sports remain event and market driven. They do not yet have a wide appeal mostly because the coverage is not evenly spread among markets. In addition, revenue generate by women's sports, does not at the moment seem to be filtering down to the athletes for many sports. Tennis and golf, plus a few other niche sports allow female athletes to make great livings, but taking the example of soccer and hockey, sports that generate significant commercial, marketing and financial opportunities for sponsors and networks however in both cases the USA national women's team on those sports were in conflict with their national federations about getting a compensation which was equitable for the time they invested in the sport and more importantly fairer when compared to male counterparts and as a ratio of the revenue generated. Viewership numbers and the increasing number of major sponsors for some very specific women's sporting events would see, to provide evidence that things are beginning to change when it comes to commercial investment in and viability of women’s sport. However, it is still very obvious that there is still a battle with many potential inverters seemingly unaware of the value of women’s sports. Meanwhile, other organizations pay lip service to women’s sports. In addition, there is an issue in how the world of sport classifies ‘sport’ itself, that it still tends to be through the use of men's sports as a benchmark, A shift in perspective is required from top to bottom, from grassroots to professional and national team levels. While many feel that female sports stars are undervalued as well as under-represented in the media, this represents an opportunity for commercial partners to strike a bargain. There has also been a concerted effort by some brands to engage the grassroots with all-encompassing campaigns aimed at the general public for the future development of women’s sports. It would appear that the savvy brands recognize that investing in women’s sport is a long-term game and therefore requires a focus on the grassroots, with a view to boosting the fan base and ultimately the talent pool in years to come. By enhancing the marketability of elite female athletes, the idea of success in women’s sports becomes more attractive and the talent pool expands. What needs to be done as an industry is build the brand of individual female sports stars. While in men’s football alone you have hundreds of individuals adored and looked up to by fans around the world, the same cannot be said for women. In fact, for the average person, it would likely be a struggle to name 10 famous current female soccer stars if put on the spot. Expand that comparison to other sports and evaluate how many female sports stars are household names. Many that are considered the biggest starts might have nothing to do with their athletic exploits but rather on looks or via marking campaigns based on selling them as individuals and not as a part of a collective elite level sport. Women’s sports must have an entirely different approach that is appreciative of the things women want from sport versus the things men want. What might make men's sports interesting might not be the same for women's sports. Instead of playing the comparison game and looking for similarities, why not focus on what makes women's sport unique. t is clear that many in the sports industry – from sponsors through to media companies – are missing a trick as they refuse to consider deviating from the traditional male audience. The long-held argument that women’s sports are not of a sufficient standard in which to invest for a positive return simply does not stack up. Granting women’s sports greater exposure opens up a valuable future revenue stream for broadcasters and brands alike. The moral case for giving women equal exposure in sport, however justifiable, doesn't need to be the only reasoning. Investing in women's sport can actually be smart business. The industry of women's sport must work to educate girls and women on what success in women’s sport can look like, creating a more attractive career path and eventually a richer pool of talent – a change that needs to take place from grassroots levels up. Keep in mind that women's sports represent an untapped market of potential viewership. While some things change, one reality that remains is that women still make up a significant percentage of the budget decision makers in households. If for no other reason, why wouldn't marketers want to target them by providing them with an entertainment option they can more easily relate to. We have seen a small number of insightful companies, enlightened governing bodies and forward thinking organizations beginning to disrupt the vicious circle of under-investment. Smart business is about seeing the opportunities before others and taking a leap of faith. Why wouldn't anyone want to invest in something that is made up of a peer group that represents more than 50% of the population. to be continued ..............
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAfter many years of coaching at various levels and with different teams, I thought I would share some of my experiences and thoughts about coaching. Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|