Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
Furthermore, the only person who's been "hurt" by her withdrawing from Wimbledon and other tournaments is her bank account.
Wimbledon and the French Open were certainly “hurt” by not having arguably the most marketable player… men’s or women’s play in their respective tournaments.
The TV broadcasters and their advertisers were “hurt” by her quitting.
The shareholders and anyone with a business interest in her endorsement companies were “hurt” by her not playing in two of the most high profile tournaments in the sport. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
Wimbledon and the French Open were certainly “hurt” by not having arguably the most marketable player… men’s or women’s play in their respective tournaments.
The TV broadcasters and their advertisers were “hurt” by her quitting.
The shareholders and anyone with a business interest in her endorsement companies were “hurt” by her not playing in two of the most high profile tournaments in the sport.
This is completely false.
Those broadcast deals were made years in advance of her even hitting the scene.
Players bow out to injury all of the time and the ratings don't take a nosedive because of it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
The TV ratings would not have been higher if Osaka was in the final rounds of either tournament? Seriously?
People that watch tennis watch tennis, regardless of who's in the finals.
Do you watch the Chiefs if Tyreek Hill is injured? What if Patrick Mahomes is injured? Do you still watch the games?
Of course you do, just like tennis lovers watch Wimbledon and all of the majors.
Osaka has social anxiety, so it was the right move for her personally to sit out until she's well because she certainly doesn't want to end up like Jennifer Capriati.
Wimbledon draws miniscule ratings, anyway. They used to average about 2 million last decade but they've been up and down in the past decade, although they're not too far off from their numbers from the 2000's.
Last Sunday’s Novak Djokovic-Matteo Berrettini Wimbledon men’s final averaged 1.76 million viewers on ESPN, down 54% from the previous men’s final in 2019, Djokovic’s five-set marathon win over Roger Federer (3.83M), but up 8% from Djokovic-Kevin Anderson in 2018 (1.64M).
The full telecast window averaged 1.5 million, down 57% from 2019 but up 37% from 2018.
The previous day’s Ashleigh Barty-Karolína Plíšková women’s final averaged just 1.09 million — down 55% from Simona Halep-Serena Williams in 2019 (2.44M) and the smallest audience for any Wimbledon singles final since ESPN began airing the event exclusively in 2011. The previous low was 1.33 million for Petra Kvitova-Eugenie Bouchard in 2014.
The full telecast averaged 729,000 (-40%). [Reply]
Back in high school, mid 90s. No internet. But our high school library got regular magazine subscriptions. So, I would read the Sports Illustrated during study hall, taking turns with tons of other guys. We had a stereotypical librarian woman in her late 40s, the type of woman who probably hadn't seen a penis in her life. When the yearly swimsuit edition came out, she would cut out all the bikini pics, but leave the stories. LOL. Fuck you, Linda..... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
The swimsuit edition is such an oddity. It would be like Readers Digest or The Economist devoting one issue a year to women in bikinis. It has nothing to do with the magazine's core topic at all.
It also looks like they were on the precipice of outright porn in the 2015 cover before they walked it back.
I'm not complaining at all, and I understand that scantily clad women sell magazines (or at least they did before the internet), but it's just odd.
Back in the 80s it was a shameless way to sell Sports Illustrated subscriptions. Men generally had an interest in the magazine to begin with. There was no internet, though, so if they wanted a bunch of sexy girlie pics they had to buy them in a setting where that was explicitly the only reason they were making the purchase.
Enter Sports Illustrated. You're buying the great sports journalism. You can't help it they also throw in one issue full of gorgeous women posing in bikinis. You are completely innocent of being a perv, and your wife/girlfriend/mom cannot complain or judge you because liking sports is totally acceptable and getting the swimsuit issue is just a byproduct of that completely innocent fact. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
The swimsuit edition is such an oddity. It would be like Readers Digest or The Economist devoting one issue a year to women in bikinis. It has nothing to do with the magazine's core topic at all.
It also looks like they were on the precipice of outright porn in the 2015 cover before they walked it back.
I'm not complaining at all, and I understand that scantily clad women sell magazines (or at least they did before the internet), but it's just odd.
It used to be a magazine geared towards men. Men liked boobs. They showed boobs. They sold lots of magazines.
Apparently these days they're geared towards a different market. One that doesn't seem to buy their magazines anyway. :-) [Reply]
