"The Wilhelmina 7": LPGA Golfers in Bikinis, Evening Gowns and Lingerie -- and Why It May Be the Smartest Move in Women's Sports Today

Get over it.

If you think sexuality is bad for women's sports than you ought to stop watching all sports, male or female. Because that's where it's headed -- as if it isn't already there and has been for some time.

But with the advent of "The Wilhelmina 7" I'm not sure I know of a more overt targeted marketing effort aimed at enhancing the profile of a major professional women's sport by exploiting individual player's looks and ability. And why shouldn't they?

As Dieter Esch, chairman of Wilhelmina Artist Management explains:

"There was simply not enough pizazz on the LPGA Tour. The players had no representation to speak of, no advertisements to speak of. It's a crime, so Wilhelmina is taking it upon itself to change that."

Esch hand-picked seven LPGA pros who will be represented by Wilhelmina Artist Management, a division of the world famous New York modeling agency. The "Wilhelmina 7" are Minea Blomqvist, Sandra Gal, Anna Grzebien, Kim Hall, Johanna Head, Mikaela Parmlid and Stacy Prammanasudh.

The Los Angeles Times explains the arrangement:

The agency will seek sponsorship and endorsement deals for the women as a group and as individuals. [...] Clients interested in one of the group or all of them may make up their mind as they thumb through a bound booklet of color photographs of the players, posing in bikinis, summer dresses, and more slinky dresses.

This is good news for the often flailing LPGA marketing department. Female golfers fare poorly in the endorsement game. It doesn't help that their viewing audience is woefully small. To put it in perspective, as men's golf openly frets (whines) over what will become of its audience with Tiger Woods on sidelines, one thing they don't worry about (unlike men's tennis vis-à-vis women's tennis) is the women's game taking over. The LPGA poses not even a remote threat to a Tiger-less PGA.

LPGA officials claim they haven't had time to study the deal and so far have withheld comment. But players on the LPGA tour don't seem to mind. From Annika Sorenstam to Lorena Ochoa to Hall of Famer Amy Walcott, they've responded quite positively.

In fact it's rare you hear anything negative from the overwhelming majority of female athletes when one of their sister athletes goes for the "exposure." Even the venerable Women's Sports Foundation never gives their constituents any hassle about posing in Playboy or in Maxim or other lad mags.

And they shouldn't. It doesn't hurt women's tennis if Ashley Harkleroad poses naked in Playboy this August and it doesn't hurt Indy Racing when Danica Patrick splays her goodies in Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue this past spring. Instead it actually raises the profile of their sports. These women wouldn't be in these magazines if they weren't extremely talented athletes. No one would really care if they worked in a drug store. People care -- people find their photo spreads interesting -- because of their status as a pro athlete. And last I checked, being a professional athlete is damned hard thing to do.

Anna Kournikova still gets endless shit about being "all looks" but never winning a major tournament. (She won two Wimbledon doubles titles, by the way.) Well, let's see you be ranked in top 12 on the WTA. It's not just no small feat. It's a huge achievement. It's elite athlete status. It's hours and hours and hours and years and years an years of practice and hard work.

The double-standard women athletes endure with regard to marketing their sexuality is totally unacceptable. We'd never hear it about with Tom Brady. We never heard it about with Michael Jordan. Or Terrell Owens who is shirtless on every magazine cover he does. Or David Beckham posing nearly naked. For both men and the women athletes it's about the same things: it's about making money, it's about endorsements, it's about potential acting and broadcast opportunities. It's about their total careers as "athlete-celebrities." It's not just good for their sport but it's good for them. And that's nobody's business but theirs.

Prudish hypocrisy has kept women's sports and women athletes in the dark too long. The Wilhelmina 7 should be praised as a bold business model.

Time will tell, but according to Dieter Esch the initial response from potential corporate partners has been "tremendous." That's no surprise to Esch, given the near total lack of marketing female athletes this way. As he says, "Have you ever put water in the desert?"

Comments

[bigmikecraft]

I disagree with the comment of 1099. I think womens golf is very good. The women don't drive the ball as far as the men, but they hit a good short game and putt well. When you all thought Michelle Wie was going to scrub College for the tour, you were all sad when she didn't. The tragety of Michelle Wie is the college life will take away from her Pro Game. Natalie Gilbus is very attractive and sexy and still hits a great ball, as does Paula Creamer, and Christie Kerr. These women all have agents. The 7 ladie golfers chosen by Wilhemenia look as though they did not. I personally like Creamer and Gilbus! They give a little pizazz to the course. Yes, I did play some golf and played on the old hussle tour 13 times in 1970 & 71. I had the great pleasure of Playing as a Partner with Charlie Workman, the greatest hustler of the 60's, 70's 80's thru 94. I could keep up with Charlie for 9 holes but then he had to bail me out. I found out why later in life. I contracted MS in 1998, and the doctors said that could have been what got me so tired as a 20 year old. I loved Golf and played to a solid 3. I could never beat Natalie in my best day. Onaka, crazy Dottie, Se Ri, and Grace Park are all good. I love the LPGA! Sincerely bigmikecraft

[BunkerShot]

Photos and more on this story over at BunkerShot:

http://blog.bunkershot.com/2008/06/25/wilhelmina-artist-management-launches-w7-%E2%80%93-wilhelmina-7/

[LiberalBuzz]

I agree with everything you say.

BUT the problem so far as I see it, is not the size of the audience but WHO the audience is. MEN watch almost all sports and women rarely do. It's is not comedy sitcom material, it is a reality of life. Men prefer to see themselves in those sports they choose to watch.

And watching women doesn't quite fit that model. Most women will never be able to compete head to head with men in the majority of sports. I don't know very many women who could play in the NFL, do you?

So there is something else at work here and that is the simple fact that sports are watched by men and they don't relate to women doing what they imagine themselves doing.

IF women watched as much as men you'd see a whole different ballpark with regards to sponsors and audience size.

Weird but true.

[1099]

The reason that LPGA ratings are awful is the same reason that WNBA ratings are awful. No one wants to watch women playing these sports when the men are so much better at them.

Also, most of the women on the LPGA are tour aren't the least bit attractive. This is a major reason why the endorsements don't flow their way.

That is the truth and nothing else.

[BunkerShot]

Natalie Gulbis, Paula Creamer, Morgan Pressel

Enough said....

Thanks.......Rob Walters
BunkerShot.com GOLF

[wayoutleft]

very very few people need to stop watching women's sports, given the miniscule size of the audience to start with. i'm just saying that semi-nude poses in laddie mags have no relationship to sports. some bronzed bimbo in SI-laddie may be an expert on orchid cultivation for all i know. but it's not what's happening in SI-laddie. it's just not there. so if anna jiggleova or whoever gets mostly naked for a bathroom mag- she's half naked in a bathroom mag, which has nothing to do with tennis. this is why everybody's excited about danica patrick except racing fans. for racing fans- she has to win.

[Dave Hollander - Huffpost Blogger]

"so if anna jiggleova or whoever gets mostly naked for a bathroom mag- she's half naked in a bathroom mag, which has nothing to do with tennis."

except that she wouldn't be in the mag if it weren't for her platform established in professional tennis. her 'celebrity,' if you will, already has it's bona fides as an pro athlete. for her, it's a larger picture business move. she's parlaying her celebrity. by going in the magazine, the athlete may increase her draw at the gate but more likely will increases her marketability which could garner her more sponsorship. you're right that it doesn't make her a better tennis player. but it may make her more interesting to some segment of her fans and may increase her fan base. she also may lose some disapproving fans in the process. that's the risk she takes. the wilhelmina 7 thing is purely a marketing thing. it is bound to help the LPGA. if calvin klein did the same thing with 7 NFL players would we care as much?

what people object to (danica patrick) is the form of the athlete's marketing move. instead of writing a book or going on dancing with the stars she poses in a magazine. i suspect some who scoff at her posing are the same ones who protest for the right to see a Mapplethorpe exhibit. it's simply a moral choice -- her's, and nobody elses's.