| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5369
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/19/24 12:27 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
It’s crazy, there has always been the debate about marketing and how women should support the league but men are primarily sports fans etc..
The W was never marketing to women the right way. Parasocial marketing is king with women and these young women are amazing at it.. which leads to other content creators creating about them. The amount of draft day fashion videos and Paige Bueckers edits I’ve seen are astronomical..and Angel is always unboxing something fancy. |
Lets hope the W gets the message. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9635
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/24 4:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| How much of the surge was for women's college basketball, and how much was for Caitlin Clark and Iowa? Seems like Clark and her logo threes and her cornfed Midwest team drove most of any extra boost. I think Clark controls how much the WNBA benefits. If Clark is as good as Kelsey Pum in the WNBA (who, after a few years, became a two time all-star and all-WNBA) the league probably doesn't get much boost. I think Clark has to become a superstar for the league to get a significant benefit.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5369
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/24 4:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| How much of the surge was for women's college basketball, and how much was for Caitlin Clark and Iowa? Seems like Clark and her logo threes and her cornfed Midwest team drove most of any extra boost. I think Clark controls how much the WNBA benefits. If Clark is as good as Kelsey Pum in the WNBA (who, after a few years, became a two time all-star and all-WNBA) the league probably doesn't get much boost. I think Clark has to become a superstar for the league to get a significant benefit. |
Nah, other players also contributed to the hype. Most notably, Angel Reese and Cameron Brink among others. Their social media influencer type stuff really gave casual fans something to sink their teeth into. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9635
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/24 5:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hyperetic wrote: |
Nah, other players also contributed to the hype. Most notably, Angel Reese and Cameron Brink among others. Their social media influencer type stuff really gave casual fans something to sink their teeth into. |
I think "para social engagement" can and has lead to more fans. But there is probably a lower-than-desired limit to it because it still requires women to get interested in watching other women compete to put a ball through a hoop. Something they don't seem inclined to do in large numbers, particularly while young. And judging from the reactions here, if they added non-basketball stuff to the game broadcasts to increase viewership from social media followers, the traditional fans will howl.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19766
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/19/24 7:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| hyperetic wrote: |
Nah, other players also contributed to the hype. Most notably, Angel Reese and Cameron Brink among others. Their social media influencer type stuff really gave casual fans something to sink their teeth into. |
I think "para social engagement" can and has lead to more fans. But there is probably a lower-than-desired limit to it because it still requires women to get interested in watching other women compete to put a ball through a hoop. Something they don't seem inclined to do in large numbers, particularly while young. And judging from the reactions here, if they added non-basketball stuff to the game broadcasts to increase viewership from social media followers, the traditional fans will howl. |
Parasocial marketing is just about marketing the whole person authentically. It’s effective on women because of the outreach, along with women in general like the whole story. Sure, at the end of the day a person has to like basketball to stay a fan, but I think a lot of women haven’t given it a try - in the fact that these players are providing other forms of entertainment along with the basketball increases the odds that women will stay.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3319
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/20/24 7:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jmh1982 wrote: |
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
That presupposes that all of the people who are following Caitlin Clark to the WNBA are doing so because they actually like women's basketball. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that. |
Does it? If anything it suggests that they show up only for CC, but stick around because in the process of following her they actually realize that they like watching the women's game. |
That would require me to extend a measure of credit/benefit of the doubt to these new "fans," that I'm simply not willing to do. Been burned too many times by previous "saviors" of the league.
If Clark and the other rookies come into the WNBA and are 'merely' okay, or even very good but not dominant, I fully expect all of this sudden new interest to vanish into the ether. I don't believe that they'll actually stick around because they realize, "Oh, I didn't know that A'ja Wilson was this good! I didn't know that Napheesa Collier was this good! I didn't know that Alyssa Thomas and Jewell Loyd were this good!" The ones who do stick around if Clark doesn't start breaking records on Day One will work out to be the same percentage that stick around for basically every other Number One pick. Which is to say, not enough to raise the league to the "next level."
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11155
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/21/24 10:15 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| jmh1982 wrote: |
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
That presupposes that all of the people who are following Caitlin Clark to the WNBA are doing so because they actually like women's basketball. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that. |
Does it? If anything it suggests that they show up only for CC, but stick around because in the process of following her they actually realize that they like watching the women's game. |
That would require me to extend a measure of credit/benefit of the doubt to these new "fans," that I'm simply not willing to do. Been burned too many times by previous "saviors" of the league.
If Clark and the other rookies come into the WNBA and are 'merely' okay, or even very good but not dominant, I fully expect all of this sudden new interest to vanish into the ether. I don't believe that they'll actually stick around because they realize, "Oh, I didn't know that A'ja Wilson was this good! I didn't know that Napheesa Collier was this good! I didn't know that Alyssa Thomas and Jewell Loyd were this good!" The ones who do stick around if Clark doesn't start breaking records on Day One will work out to be the same percentage that stick around for basically every other Number One pick. Which is to say, not enough to raise the league to the "next level." |
Excellent point. Which is why I think it's important to talk about the quality of the product in the WNBA, which is directly related to the number of elite athletes on each team. The more diluted the talent, the lower the quality of the product.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
|
|
