I’m not asking this to insult the sport for the athletes. I’m just curious about whether or not this market tactic has been increasing viewership by significant amount. I have noticed the past few years whenever I go to the ESPN website there’s women’s basketball in your face. Whether it’s advertisements, headline articles, or tweets that are being pushed by media companies. We even saw the weird choice of Steph Curry Who is the greatest three-point shooter history has ever seen to not participate in the three-point contest this year and instead compete against a female basketball player in a three-point contest.

And finally, the star of the Iowa women’s basketball team proclaimed that women’s basketball is now more exciting the men’s basketball. So that brings me to my question. Is this marketing campaign actually taking effect?

What if the last sentence was the thread title?

(Marketing can be effective and Caitlin Clark bombing away from 25 feet is fun to watch)

So ESPN is heavily marketing an event they are broadcasting on their network. An interesting strategy.

(03-26-2024 07:54 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I’m not asking this to insult the sport for the athletes. I’m just curious about whether or not this market tactic has been increasing viewership by significant amount. I have noticed the past few years whenever I go to the ESPN website there’s women’s basketball in your face. Whether it’s advertisements, headline articles, or tweets that are being pushed by media companies. We even saw the weird choice of Steph Curry Who is the greatest three-point shooter history has ever seen to not participate in the three-point contest this year and instead compete against a female basketball player in a three-point contest.

And finally, the star of the Iowa women’s basketball team proclaimed that women’s basketball is now more exciting the men’s basketball. So that brings me to my question. Is this marketing campaign actually taking effect?

I will say the basketball is better than it has even been. The talent has grown and has been dispersed amongst more teams. That being said, c'mon now. I watch Iowa games to see how much chucking and whining Clark will do. She was on-point yesterday turning the ball over en masse and whining about every play. But of course they prevailed as if they'd be allowed to lose this early.

Not sure about how this sport will look once Clarkwhine leaves though. Im sure the ratings have increased but don't have numbers. I know WNBA attendance has been flat over 25 years so there's delusions thinking that sport has grown at all. ESPN per usual is virtual signalling and most likely taking a loss on women's sports. Shows that Clark has mental issues if she thinks women missing layups are more exciting than the men's game.

Also take the most 3s, make the most 3s.That's the only reason Curry is the "best".

(03-26-2024 08:07 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  What if the last sentence was the thread title?

(Marketing can be effective and Caitlin Clark bombing away from 25 feet is fun to watch)

Especially when she hits nothing but the backboard. Shades of Sorenstam and Wei trying to prove something to themselves even though the fans are ambivalent.

Look at Hollywood for a comparison. They are forcing female centric and focused superhero and Star Wars movies which are genres consumed primarily by boys and men and its not working there in terms of tv ratings and box office.

It seems that thanks to the combustible mix of social media and NIL the last couple of years, which has allowed players like Reese and Brink and Bueckers and especially Clark to raise their media profiles, the ratings for the Women's tournament are going up. That IMO probably has more to do with it than the ESPN marketing.

Also, FWIW, I find the women's game still largely unwatchable. I tuned in for large parts of the LSU - MTSU game the other day, and for Iowa - WV last night, and for every great Clark 25 footer that hits nothing but net, there are still a shockingly high number of bricks and airballs and just plain ugly shots, shots that you see in 10 year old boys community league games. These things jar me so much that I am reminded of how low-level these hoops actually are.

Just MO.

It seems to me that if you aren't interested in women's basketball you could just not watch it. Not everything in the world has to be for you and it is ok if people like things you don't like.

I don't watch it. I have tried, but man it is hard. I wonder how the ratings are?

(03-26-2024 09:27 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  It seems to me that if you aren't interested in women's basketball could could just not watch it. Not everything in the world has to be for you and it is ok if people like things you don't like.

If you keep your mouth shut it is impossible for anything to be shoved down your throat.

After Clark leaves, no one will watch until the next "character" is created. ESPN would be better off boardcasting college baseball or any other events with higher level of talent. Womens bowling would be better since the gap is narrow between women and men.

Women don’t even watch women’s basketball/sports. The WNBA did some research into Internet clicks onto their site and social media and something like 70% were by men. Ticket sales run similarly. I don’t have the citations to these so take it for what it is.

(03-26-2024 09:27 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  It seems to me that if you aren't interested in women's basketball you could just not watch it. Not everything in the world has to be for you and it is ok if people like things you don't like.

I mean, if you don't care about a thread, you could not click.

OP asks a real question. ESPN has been marketing their womens' CBB, that's a reality. They own that tournament. Big womens' college basketball games on ABC.

And yes, it's working. 3 womens' basketball games above 500,000 last week, first weekend of the tournament. That didn't used to happen.

https://twitter.com/SportsTVRatings/stat...7066536360

(03-26-2024 09:45 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-26-2024 09:27 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  It seems to me that if you aren't interested in women's basketball you could just not watch it. Not everything in the world has to be for you and it is ok if people like things you don't like.

I mean, if you don't care about a thread, you could not click.

OP asks a real question. ESPN has been marketing their womens' CBB, that's a reality. They own that tournament. Big womens' college basketball games on ABC.

And yes, it's working. 3 womens' basketball games above 500,000 last week, first weekend of the tournament. That didn't used to happen.

https://twitter.com/SportsTVRatings/stat...7066536360

I wasnt talking about the OP. I was talking about more than a few of the comments afterwards. The OP asked a fine question.

I'll be locked in by the final couple of rounds. Lots of intriguing storylines. Women's game has more juice in terms of the storylines than the men's. Finals did 10million last year, which is almost half of what the men typically do.

Volleyball and BBall are clear ratings drivers for women's college sports (softball is probably too boring for most viewers). As far as professionally, I think only tennis, soccer and women's gymnastics/figure skating are revenue positive (ie. worthwhile for major networks to broadcast). That's still a plethora of sports to pull from and market.

Hockey is no better when it comes to this forcing.

I'll give you womens teams Team Canada and Team USA.
I'll take Grand Forks (ND) Red River and Warroad (MN) boys HS teams.
Four team round robin; women's rules.
I'll win.

(03-26-2024 09:36 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  After Clark leaves, no one will watch until the next "character" is created. ESPN would be better off boardcasting college baseball or any other events with higher level of talent. Womens bowling would be better since the gap is narrow between women and men.

(03-26-2024 09:38 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Women don’t even watch women’s basketball/sports. The WNBA did some research into Internet clicks onto their site and social media and something like 70% were by men. Ticket sales run similarly. I don’t have the citations to these so take it for what it is.

That's where I was until not that long ago.

But the ratings are showing something. My theory, ESPN is leveraging the power of brands and brand names. Drafting off of the cultural power of March Madness, and off of the cultural power of big college sports brands.

College basketball fans aren't attached to particular athletes, the players come and go. It's about loyalty to the tribe. My dad used to jke about my mom that if you wrapped a green ribbon around a lump of cowpoop and called it Irish Select she'd buy it (Irish-American, not Notre Dame Irish).

So if Geaux Tigers guy can't watch LSU mens basketball, but the LSU ladies are playing, you can get a couple million to watch. I'm going to print out a bracket and count up how many No. 1, 2, 3, 4 seeds are SEC / Big Ten / Notre Dame / FSU/Clemson, schools with P2 sized fanbases.

1. South Carolina, Iowa, Texas, USC
2. Stanford, Ohio State, Notre Dame, UCLA
3. Oregon STate, LSU, NC State, UConn
4. Indiana, Kansas State, Gonzaga, Virginia Tech.

7 of the top 8 are P2 schools. Let me check who was playing in those games that got 500,000 viewers -- LSU, South Carolina, MAryland vs Iowa State. Mixed results for my theory. LSU was not in the mens tournament, South CArolina was. Iowa State was, Maryland wasn't.

(03-26-2024 09:59 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I'll be locked in by the final couple of rounds. Lots of intriguing storylines. Women's game has more juice in terms of the storylines than the men's. Finals did 10million last year, which is almost half of what the men typically do.

Volleyball and BBall are clear ratings drivers for women's college sports (softball is probably too boring for most viewers). As far as professionally, I think only tennis, soccer and women's gymnastics/figure skating are revenue positive (ie. worthwhile for major networks to broadcast). That's still a plethora of sports to pull from and market.

I'd argue that softball is much more entertaining relative to it's male counterpart than womens basketball is, but my school also happens to be 100x better at softball than womens basketball.

WBB has seen the biggest increase in popularity post-covid, IMO. I would say marketing is working, but it may have been set to this natural trajectory regardless.

I’ll say also, and this is off color so apologies in advance, but women’s college ball tend to have players that are younger and more feminine. WNBA players are too tall. I just think that’s an important factor for male viewers… in case anyone else didn’t want to say it. I don’t watch a ton of NBA either so I could be off base.