Danica Patrick Breaks Sports Illustrated Cover Barrier!
May 16, 2008
It has been almost three years, almost 200 regular issues, and 10 women dressed in swimsuits since the last solo female athlete graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. During that time span, Candace Parker led the Tennessee Volunteers to back-to-back NCAA basketball championships, her coach — Pat Summit — became the all-time winningest coach in NCAA history, Venus Williams won Wimbledon twice, and young golfer Lorena Ochoa has emerged with the dominance of Tiger Woods. So congratulations to Danica Patrick who became the first solo woman athlete to land a cover shot since, well… Danica Patrick back in June 6, 2005 [1]. Coincidentally or not, it came one month after my recent article Sports Illustrated’s Cover Barrier: Who Will Break the Bikini Line?
It also came during a week where #1 ranked tennis star Justine Henin and golfer Annika Sorenstam both announced their retirements. Henin won 7 grand slams, Sorenstam won 8 LPGA player-of-the-year awards, and together they totaled zero SI covers. To be fair, Henin and Sorenstam face multiple-bias-disorder as SI at least has an equal opportunity stance in its non-coverage of foreign athletes (Roger Federer is clearly their most egregious cover omission).
Congrats SI: But those facts should not stop SI for being commended for the Patrick cover who is a very deserving candidate. Last month she became the first female driver in IndyCar history to win a race (the Japan 300), and is currently 5th in this season’s point standing heading the Indy 500 on May 25. Because of her pioneering status her story clearly transcends her sport. …In SI’s very same issue is a preview of the upcoming WNBA season which features a prime rookie class (see Candace Parker, Sylvia Fowles, and Candace Wiggins); an early-season favorite (Los Angeles Sparks with Lisa Leslie and Parker); and new female franchise ownership within the league (Spark’s owners Kathy Goodman & Carla Christofferson). believe it or not, once upon a time, such reading at SI was commonplace.
SI History and Herstory: The three year span in between Danica covers marks the longest solo female athlete drought in SI’s 54 year history. It is part of SI’s worst decade of coverage with about one solo athlete per year. People might be shocked to learn that in SI’s first decade, female athletes made the cover about four or five times a year in a variety of sports. The public knew about female golf stars Barbara Romack (1956) or Anne Quast (1959), Olympic swimmer/divers Jeanne Stunyo or Becky Collins (1960), or Tennis champion Althea Gibson (1957) even during an era where black men could rarely land a solo cover. But two things have happened since the 1950’s: the number of women athletes and access to sports has grown significantly, yet their coverage has declined just as much — except for the swimsuit issues.
Cover Tokenism or a New Direction?: Is the Patrick cover an act to fill a one-per-year quota? Or is it the beginning of more inclusive COVERage? Is it a token break from the “entrenched sexism” [2]that a former female SI staffer said informs its coverage? Or is it a new more responsible business direction? Just like Danica Patrick’s placement in the upcoming Indy 500, the answers to these questions remain to be seen.
—————————-
[1] No the 2005 miniskirt cover of “SI Throws a Party: Jennie Finch will be There”" does not count.
[2] From “The Franchise: A History of Sports Illustrated Magazine” by Michael McCambridge in 1998.
APRIL 14, 2008: Sports Illustrated’s Cover Barrier: Who Will Break the Bikini Line?
Comments
14 Responses to “Danica Patrick Breaks Sports Illustrated Cover Barrier!”
Got something to say?
Yeah, good for Danica. It is a really big deal b/c she’s doing very well in a major (?) sport that’s traditionally been dominated by men for, well, since forever. It doesn’t hurt that she’s easy on the eyes as well (if a lil too slight of body for my tastes, but that’s a whole other column).
In my weak effort to find a reasonable excuse for SI, it occurred to me that the other solo female covers were athletes who’ve broken a significant barrier and/or had a high degree of (their idea of) sex appeal. With sports fragmentation being what it is these days, women besting other women in a female sport doesn’t seem to cut it.
SI did try an SI for Women magazine but unfortunately it died in December 2002. It seems not even women were willing to buy a magazine featuring their own sports heroes/models.
Considering the business needs and the very obvious fact that it’s men who buy these magazines (and of a particular — read: red-blooded white — demographic. eesh, just dawned on me: I wonder what percentage of the sports mag buying public is gay??), perhaps they’re doing the next best thing, which is to lure the usual buyers in with the graphics they need on the cover, but provide strong coverage of female athletes inside.
That would be the biggest crime of all to see gamers like Candace and Danica being passed over for feature article treatment.
MODI>
Thanks for the first article as well as this one. I was shocked when I saw the cover of SI yesterday. It made me think about your article last month. What does it all mean?
I think it’s partially a story that folks are interested in, and partially a good business decision. Have things changed at SI? It remains to be seen. However, it couldn’t hurt SI to focus more on women. After all, women like sports, too. Young women need role models.
Still, it doesn’t fix the glaring omissions of women (and Federer), who deserved to be on the cover. Methinks there are some folks that just don’t people will buy SI if a woman or a foreigner. I think folks would buy SI regardless of who is on the cover. Most of them wouldn’t care that a woman not in a bathing suit is on the cover.
It’s disappointing that it took SI so long. I understand that good looks sell, but even if that was some sort of pre-requisite, it is not as if no female athletes exist who are both beautiful and talented. (Some other stories that also come to mind are the Hope Solo goal-tending controversy, new track superstar Allison Felix, and the lady who missed the gold medal in snowboarding by messing up at the end in the 2006 Olympics).
Folly and kos — thanks for the response… some thoughts;
The thing about SI is that even in the age of web media, they don’t just follow news, but they CREATE news. I never heard of female boxer Christi Martin until SI had her on the cover “Lady is a champ”… is seems that Laila Ali — a far better fighter, waaaay more attractive, and has that great last name — could have landed a cover easily as she was also very marketable… which is why she was on 100 other covers. Someone like Candace Parker is perfectly marketable in every way, but has been passed over. Business can’t only be at work here, but poor decisions…
– Two weeks ago they had Kobe and KG on the cover wondering if an LA-Celts final is great for the NBA. It was a great cover and what happened next was every talk show was picking up the question and the story the next day. Why? Because SI still creates news — except about women.
– SI for Women was a token move and very few people knew about it. I don’t know what can be drawn from it. Source magazine came out with “source sports” which failed in one year. I can’t infer that readers who care about hip-hop don’t care about sports. There are a lot of variables that go into launching any new mag.
– If it is a pure business strategy then it is a short-sighted one. Like PPV and boxing, if you go for what you perceive to the greatest dollar amount for each and every issue, but don’t invest, then you don’t pick up new fan bases along the way. SI as a business model has failed women athletes and fans. My best guess has something to with having almost no women sitting at the table when it is time to make a decision — not to mention past allegations of “entrenched sexism”.
– The “business decision issue” has been around since the beginning and always requires forward thinking executive. In the 1950s SI would rarely put a male black athlete on the cover. Incredibly, Jim Brown only made it one time in 1960. Mays only one solo cover in the ’50s. I’m sure that the public justification on record was a business one. But that is why you have execs who lead and those who follow. SI has had followers in charge.
(note: that last statement is simply one on “business mindset” and not any kind of comparison of the dynamics of racism in the ’50s vs. sexism today)
thanks modi, great article.
[…] Comments Danica Patrick Breaks Sports Illustrated Cover Barrier! | Sports On My Mind on Sports Illustrated’s Cover Barrier: Who Will Break the Bikini Line?JH on The Salary Cap Myth: […]
MODI - it’s a pure business decision. Shortsighted, yes. There may be another female athlete put on the cover come Olympics time, but outside of that, I will be very shocked if they go with a WNBA player or any individual female athlete.
Declining circulation of the print industry in general means most managing editors are company men (literally) and followers, and that means they’ll make cover decisions that are the most attractive to non-subscribers in order to drive newsstand /bookstore sales. This means dudes in major sports.
I expect another lengthy gap, and the only reason Danica Patrick got the cover this time, I sense, is because she’s the only name the average American sports fan knows when it comes to open-wheel racing. Now, she just happens to deserve it with her recent win.
I think we’re drifting pretty close to agree-to-disagree stage on this one, MODI. I think we’re drifting into a discussion about the role/power of sports in society.
I think the news industry in general is more about amplifying via broadcasting certain ‘newsworthy’ events. While it certainly has the power to shape the agenda and skew viewpoint, it isn’t about making news per se. It is by nature a follower. You might possibly except investigative journalism, but even then it only counts if it finds some scandalous results to tout.
So with that mindset, I’m thinking there’s only so much a cover will do wrt social justice/equality. Namely, minimal. The movement/change has to come from within society first.
I’m willing to cede the cover stuff for now as long as there’s decent, broad coverage of all kinds of people inside. An argument can be made that covering lower profile sports (article-wise) is bad for business, too (hey, they could use all their pages on the top four, five sports if’n they wanted to) . If one article on LeKong is good, ten must be better, right?
Howzabout we review the stories in the mag for breadth of coverage for the balance of the year. Let’s see how they measure up wrt to the opportunities they have to cover significant events in women’s sports. Hm? Fair enough?
p.s. when an entrenched titan in the sports rag industry can’t get something like SI Women to work, it does say something about society’s priorities, rightly or wrongly. Don’t brush it off.
p.p.s. Because of SI’s influence and reach, chances are better than excellent that you might’ve picked up that Christy Martin issue with a different cover and found out about her anyway — and that’s the real key.
“when an entrenched titan in the sports rag industry can’t get something like SI Women to work, it does say something about society’s priorities, rightly or wrongly. Don’t brush it off.”
Folly, I just can’t draw that conclusion knowing how hard it is to start magazines — and all that goes into it — especially climate of the last 10 years. I already gave you the “Source Sports” example from the biggest hip-hop magazine folding within a year. And the same year that SI Women folded, so did the CNN/SI Sports News Channel. Should this failed TV venture by two titans be used as a stain against male sports? Now I ask you if it was an Sports Illustrated TV for Women channel, would you not make the exact same conclusion about women? These are just two examples of how new media ventures fail ALL-THE-TIME. But it is only when it is about groups looking on the outside in that we draw these sweeping conclusions. Marketing, content, format, timing, and yes, luck, are all critical factors.
To the last point about luck, keep in mind that our highest rated comedy ever (Seinfeld) almost got axed after its 2nd year due to low ratings and many other comedy show have despite similar early low ratings — often a criticism of producers of new black comedies. So while I won’t dismiss your point, I take it with some serious grains of salt.
———————————
“The movement/change has to come from within society first.”
The change HAS come through society first. More women and higher percentages of women are more involved in sports than ever before. The skill level is higher than ever before. This pendulum is also reflected in viewership:
Here is a recent example: While the NCAA Mens tournament had its second lowest ratings ever. The women’s ratings increase by 30% http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/ratings-game.html
Yet, SI has cut its average female covers to one per year from 2.5 per year in the 1990s. …Yet so many female sports have grown. The train has left the station, but SI is stuck
Yes, we can certainly “agree-to-disagree”, but the deliberate business decisions being made do not reflect society’s trends. Given past accusations of “entrenched sexism” by female staffers, it is not the greatest stretch for me to believe that decisions made by an almost excusively male cohort may be a tad biased.
MODI, I see your point and raise you a couple more.
While I definitely agree luck and timing play a significant role in success, whether it be on a personal level or in a business environment, the typical reasons why these ventures might fail is due one of two factors: 1) that particular market is already saturated and you are not different enough to muscle in a spot at the trough 2) it turns out there really isn’t sufficient demand for your product/service/content.
This does of course assume all other things being equal/sufficient like adequate appealing content/product/service and a well-stocked and wisely-spent marketing budget.
Seinfeld almost didn’t even make it past the pilot, nevermind the 2nd year (amazingly, the audience didn’t warm to the supporting cast) but studio honchos decided to persevere anyway and the show got better and turned into something pretty big. There’s a couple other shows that have a similar story (can’t recall off the top of my head) and others, like Arrested Development, that were the reverse, starting off with critical acclaim but couldn’t draw a substantial audience. I recognize the luck/timing/perseverance factor, I don’t want to downplay it, but I’m not talking about startups off on a wing and a prayer.
I’m talking about an established giant spinning off a related venture. Source magazine getting into sports? Sure, they might have the occasional take on a sports story that I might find interesting, but issue after issue? For me (and, I gather for a lot of other people), there’s not enough compelling (unique) content to persuade me to part with my $ (see point#1 above). I wonder, too, if the hip-hop mag buying market is anywhere near as large as the sports-mag buying market.
Do you think Bee Movie would have done as well as it did if it wasn’t for Seinfeld pushing it? They leveraged a popular giant and turned it into a money-making venture. Of course there are never any guarantees, but size, in terms of popularity, really can and quite often does matter (see Sony, Microsoft, etc how they leverage their dominance in one field to other fields).
I’m thinking someone at SI finally realized exactly what you said above regarding the expansion of women’s sport over the years (mind you, increases percentage-wise can sound really impressive til you take into account where you’re starting from, and what you’re comparing it to) and thought, hey, mebbe there’s enough interest now to take a run at a women-focussed sports magazine. Hell, they make up 50% of the population! That’s a pretty whoppin market, yo. They might could be ready and we should be the ones to take a big bite of that pie.
Apparently, it’s not ready just yet. Society has yet to put enough heat under it, it ain’t exactly a pipin hot market at this time. But SI should be given a couple, three props for tryin.
While I can certainly concede (even, mayhaps, expect) an anti-fem bias in many of the journos (again, reflecting the majority of society), I have different expectations of the folk who are actually responsible for the bottom line. Pressures to financially perform for the board of directors means you eventually have to look past biases to try tapping into virgin markets.
See, I think they’ve already thought of trying more women on the cover. I’m even willing to bet they’ve done a couple focus groups to try to guage response to it (which may’ve fooled em into thinking SI Women was viable?). I’ll go further to suppose they’ve closely examined the numbers when they do put a woman on the cover and compared it to male covers and I’ll bet by now they figure they’ve got a pretty reliable formula for maximizing street sales (which, don’t forget, can impact subscription sales too).
So it’s just to say that I can empathize re the cover story, but I can’t get too worked up over it as long as there’s good coverage inside and that’s the heart of the matter for me.
The gadfly rests
LOL! Folly… I believe that we are kindred spirits because if I thought like you did and were responding to me, then I would have probably written something like that. …We probably won;t agree about the meaning of “The Rise and Fall of SI for Women” and that’s cool. Besides that, I have two business responses.
The first is one of social responsibility. About 23% of their audience are women, their swimsuit issue sells 10 times the next issue off the newstand, and they have a social reponsibility to provide more rounded COVERage. Now this is an ethical question that we may very well disagree on, and not one that I really wish to extrapolate on too much right now.
But the second is purely a business issue. Your entire premise — one that I have not even challenged — is that women covers are bad for business — at least in the short-term anyway. Your second to last paragraph has given SI the business benefit of the doubt assumptions at every turn. You have assumed the very best. For that i would like to thank you because it challenged be to look further into the business end and what I found is that the few covers with women have not fared nearly as bad as I suspected. It took me a while to find single issue circulation figures. I will stop here, and you can expect my full anwer in the form of an another article this week — one that will be based on business and not ethics. So thanks for the scrutiny — and I don’t say that facetiously…
PS: I can’t tell you about the quality or quantity of SI’s coverage between the cover, nor do I have the resources to study the question. But the SI cover is not to be underestimated. For about 15 years between 1970-1990, SI had back page articles on steroids, but they didn’t register a blip on the screen. But once they stuck Lyle Alzado’s mug up there (in a very irresponsible 1991 article) the issue took off. The cover matters bigtime.
I saw the cover and immediately thought of your piece Modi….coincidence? Nope…..nothing ever is! Kudos to you!
MODI, you rock. Yes, I definitely made some assumptions and gave SI the benefit of the doubt, trusting as I do in the nature of human greed. I look forward to your findings.
p.s. You should know I am always willing to have my mind changed when presented with a strong argument. Sounds like this new research will only buttress your case.
lol
p.p.s. This may get a bit sticky (read: pedantic) but I’m not saying any sportswoman on the cover is bad for business, just ones outside a strict criteria. It could be insightful to see some circulation comparisons extrapolating female solo cover sales vs average non-female cover sales for any particular year. I say more than a 5% difference is financially significant. No argument ever on the ethical front.
p.p.p.s. A tiny bit ironic that women want to be judged more by what’s on the inside yet here you are oggling the exterior
hm. mebbe i should tweak that comparison request a bit. if you can, make sure it’s seasonally adjusted (or at least year-over-year) so it’s more fair.