As the lead cre­ative exec­u­tive in a brand­ing agency who has on many occa­sions used beau­ti­ful women (and men) in print ads and film to sell every­thing from bricks to bag­gage con­veyor sys­tems, I’d like to weigh in on the debate.

Shake­speare said. “All world is a stage. And all the men and women merely play­ers” I’ll extend this tru­ism to brand mar­ket­ing and adver­tis­ing: “All the mar­ket­place is a stage. And all the brands merely play­ers.” Just as actors don cos­tumes and makeup to assume their char­ac­ters, so do brands apply their own flat­ter­ing appur­te­nances in order to deliver their best performances.

The “Strong is Beautiful” campaign is nothing more than *that*.

In a blog post that responds more deeply to your perspective, I even connect a line between this campaign and “burger porn”.

http://www.qvbrands.com/theory/brand-porn/

Frippery comes with anything that generates a lot of money. Women’s tennis is great entertainment without it. I think it’s better to watch then men’s tennis, because of the generally longer rallys. I just wish they would play five sets. I never understood that. It’s not like they are physically incapable of doing so-just the opposite. I don’t particularly care how hot the players are while the match is going on. I also enjoy looking at these pictures and videos, which to me don’t detract from the womens’ athletic accomplishments. They are just window dressing and part of the marketing of a very lucrative business and if they actually do help to broaden the appeal of the game are probably a good thing. Nobody has to do the ads, or play on the tour, for that matter, if they are focused on the purity of the game.

I think it’s a matter of how prominent or exclusive these kinds of depictions are in the overall promotion of the sport. If tennis tournaments became more like Victoria’s Secret spectacles, then the proper focus on athletic accomplishment will have been truly lost. As long as there is no pressure for any player to dress or act a certain way in order to succeed on the tour, then it’s really up to the individual to decide how to participate in the marketing of themselves on the entertainment end.

As always, I appreciate your views even though I find myself opposed to them often. Briefly, in this, I’ll say that once again my problem is with you calling the NYT videos and coverage “sofcore pornography” that is “pure exploitation of female athletes.”

To, there is a difference between something being “sexual” and being “sexualized” — specifically in this case I’d argue that athletes ARE sexual but calling attention to that fact doesn’t necessarily mean that they are being sexualized, especially in a negative connotation.

It is similar in some ways to the difference between something which is “racial” and “racist”. There is a distinction which makes all the difference.

I’d love to debate some of your other points, but I’ll leave with this for now — your hypothetical question about male tennis athletes being presented in the same way.

I would agree that if the male tennis players were presented in the exact same way that it would seem weird. However, the reason it would seem weird would be because of the gender differences in the artistic presentation.

What I mean is that the female tennis players were presented in a specifically feminine way, and to present the male tennis players in a feminine way as well would certainly ring odd to most viewers.

However, if they were presented with the same regard in a specifically masculine way (which, honestly might not be ALL that different, depending on the artist) then no, I don’t think that it would necessarily be weird.

It also wouldn’t necessarily promote the sport, but would be interesting and likely well-viewed.