Olympic broadcasters curb sexual images of female athletes

66 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve Timko

unread,
Jul 27, 2021, 6:55:33 AM7/27/21
to TV or Not TV
Each Olympics aims to set the highest level of television standards

https://abcn.ws/2TAIUP3 

Less sexualized images will mean lower ratings. How much lower, I don't know.

The first unitard picture I saw was of the New Zealand gymnastics team. Before reading the headline to know what the story was about, I thought, "That is hot."
Oops.

Tom Wolper

unread,
Jul 27, 2021, 10:19:44 AM7/27/21
to TV or not TV
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 6:55 AM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
Each Olympics aims to set the highest level of television standards

https://abcn.ws/2TAIUP3 

Less sexualized images will mean lower ratings. How much lower, I don't know.

Can you substantiate this? And even if it turns out that ratings are lower, can you filter out other factors to show that this is the cause?

The first unitard picture I saw was of the New Zealand gymnastics team. Before reading the headline to know what the story was about, I thought, "That is hot."
Oops.

Hot is subjective. I am sure that there are straight men who think female weightlifters are hot. I wouldn't suggest uniform changes to enhance it or hide it, though.

PGage

unread,
Jul 27, 2021, 11:21:46 AM7/27/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
I am very skeptical of the claim that less sexualizing of female athletes will reduce ratings. If guys want to see images of hot women in bikinis (or even out of bikinis) there are a lot better ways to do that than to suffer through hours of beach volleyball hoping to catch a particularly revealing shot. 



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAJE-FiFdbgUPZXUQmz2RVhYUwuB30c2S3PFwOXbfX1FZxjhS8w%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

Steve Timko

unread,
Jul 27, 2021, 9:14:32 PM7/27/21
to TV or Not TV
Sex sells. It's that simple.
NBC's Friday night ratings are down 36% from 2016. NBC is already looking at make goods to advertisers because rating are so low.
Desexualizatioon is responsible for only a sliver of the decline, I am guessing.
But it will take even a bigger chunk in 2024. And even more in 2028.


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkY%2BDLQn4-CBDvvxBZvwSh51ykt%3D-dnFgC_-Pty84mDdkGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

PGage

unread,
Jul 27, 2021, 10:11:07 PM7/27/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
No, it is not that simple. Nobody doubted that ratings would be down this year, just that the reason would be related to less sexualization of women athletes. You still have not pro even a little bit if evidence to support that even a sliver of the decline is related to this.

The news reports on ratings I have read cite the lack of a live audience, streaming, drop out if audience favorites in first week. I have not read anyone saying it up is due to lack of sexy spandex. 

Furthermore, the decline in Olympic ratings is in line with, and so far I think less than, the decline we have seen in ratings for award shows in the last year. So I would say the main takeaway here is simply that, whatever NBC may have hoped, the Olympics are not immune to the downward pressures on ratings experienced in the rest of television. 




Steve Timko

unread,
Jul 27, 2021, 10:17:54 PM7/27/21
to TV or Not TV
Sex works in advertising. Sex works in television.





Why Sex Sells… More Than Ever


Magazine ads featuring sex are on the rise, with the exception of two not-too-sexy industries.

  • Advertisers use sexual imagery to attract sales of products as diverse as perfume and cheeseburgers.
  • While using sexy ads might seem like a risky choice, studies show that it works.
  • Sex sells because it immediately grabs attention.
  • This article is for business owners and marketers considering various approaches to advertising that might catch the attention of their target audience.

Sex still sells: A study from the University of Georgia (UGA) looked at sexual ads that have appeared in magazines over the last 30 years and found that the numbers are going up. 

Why is sex important in sales?

Sex attracts attention. Though it's often a taboo subject, companies that use sex in their marketing often create effective and memorable campaigns.





PGage

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 12:01:09 AM7/28/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Again, this is not in dispute. I like to look at sexy women as much as the next old straight creepy cis guy, and I don’t need Ad Men to explain the appeal to me. 

But sexualization of women athletes is not sex, rather it is the demeaning and trivializing of female athletes. If NBC and the IOC were pushing topless female Volleyball, or limiting gymnastics to Playboy Centerfolds (there’s a phrase that dates me) then we would be talking about whether sex is able to attract more viewers than athletics. But the kinds of uniforms and images we are talking about are extremely low level in terms of their prurient interest - you have to watch a hell of a lot of beach volleyball to see anything that really approaches the fantasy of hot babes jiggling in bikinis. Instead, what you see are skilled athletes being forced to operate in ridiculous costumes. People like animals too, but I doubt the ratings for Rugby 7s would be higher if the athletes wore puppy outfits.

I am just not sure what percentage of the viewing audience falls in the intersecting sets of : A) People who want to see women running around in absurdly skimpy and mildly titillating outfits and B) People who dont know how to use the internet to find pictures or videos of women wearing very titillating outfits, or no outfits at all.


Steve Timko

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 1:06:15 AM7/28/21
to TV or Not TV
I have never said the desexualizatioon should not take place. I think it should. It will come at a cost of lower ratings.
And like sex appeal in commercials, some like the sexualized athletes without recognizing they the sex appeal is triggering them.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKGtkYLiPfJ%3DdhzPyyx4Pz9NZT5Ypr35aQvTU3fjSETvbNzBhA%40mail.gmail.com.

Tom Wolper

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 10:55:49 AM7/28/21
to TV or not TV
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 1:06 AM Steve Timko <steve...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never said the desexualizatioon should not take place. I think it should. It will come at a cost of lower ratings.
And like sex appeal in commercials, some like the sexualized athletes without recognizing they the sex appeal is triggering them.

When I was a teenager in the 70s I remember being saturated with images of sexy women on TV, billboards, magazine ads, posters, etc. I look around and I don't see those images except in ads for strip clubs. I'll admit to not watching a lot of commercials but the character I seem to see most is Flo in Progressive ads. I'll accept that sex sells but as society changes (and we get older) the marketers and advertisers can change the visual language of what is sexy to be more in line with the desires of young adults. While we got a steady diet of thin women with big boobs and glamour makeup in scanty clothing, there can be another world of sexy that doesn't get our attention or trigger our desires because it's not what we grew up with.

What was the demographic of the federation leaders who made the rules for bikini bottoms and skimpy uniforms for female athletes? If it was middle aged men that raises the issue of appealing to the male gaze rather than paying attention to what the athletes prefer.

Kevin M.

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 11:20:01 AM7/28/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:01 PM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, this is not in dispute. I like to look at sexy women as much as the next old straight creepy cis guy, and I don’t need Ad Men to explain the appeal to me. 

But sexualization of women athletes is not sex, rather it is the demeaning and trivializing of female athletes. If NBC and the IOC were pushing topless female Volleyball, or limiting gymnastics to Playboy Centerfolds (there’s a phrase that dates me)

Unrelated but sort of related, this week Dolly Parton posted pictures and video on Facebook of her in a Playboy bunny costume, because for her husband’s birthday she thought it would be fun to recreate a cover photo she did for Playboy back when being on the cover of Playboy was a thing. And I thought about the cultural significance of a Playboy bunny now being quaint and nostalgic, not to mention tame by today’s standards of p*rn. 

On topic: I can tell you that when I was a young single lad, volleyball was boring, but girls beach volleyball was enthralling. So, for that matter, was womens figure skating. And I suppose that can be considered sexist, but as I referenced my mom earlier in this thread, she openly judged football players not by their skill level but by who had the cutest butt (apparently Lyle Alzado was at or near the top of her list). I’m not sure it is incumbent on us as audience members to not find athletes attractive, but it should be incumbent on officials to not force athletes into attire designed to bring out the worst in spectators. Athletic apparel ought to be simple, form fitting, and as light and breathable as possible, so some showing off of body parts is unavoidable, but it should be up to athletes how much or how little to show. 

In terms of ratings, beauty pageants (sorry, scholarship competitions) seemed to drop off in viewers as the revealing swimsuits and dresses were phased out. The ratings might have dropped anyway due to changes in culture, but nobody was tuning in to hear Miss Alabama’s thoughts on greenhouse gases, nor were they watching to see Miss Kansas perform ventriloquism. My own opinion on the Olympics not withstanding, it would not surprise me if today’s single young lads felt less inclined to tune in, though not sure you could get an honest survey to prove that.


--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

Adam Bowie

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 11:39:32 AM7/28/21
to tvornottv
While we're still in a position where not even all events have equal numbers of competitors of both sexes, I think there's still plenty for the Olympics to do. "Beach" sports undoubtedly play on the sexualisation of competitors, and has been used as a selling point the whole way through, not least by the governing bodies of those sports. (I note that FIFA has a "Beach Football" [Soccer] competition, but it doesn't get to be at the Olympics. But then they wear regular kit - just going barefoot.)

In terms of audience numbers, I would argue that there is absolutely no way to prove (or disprove) any relationship between competitors' attire and audience numbers. On the other hand, there are some significant things that would seem highly likely to impact of audience figures from cycle to cycle:

- The Olympics are every 4 (or 5) years and the media landscape changes massively between Olympic cycles. It's changing as fast now as it has ever done, so cycle to cycle comparisons are near impossible. Viewers just watch TV differently now. And that change is ongoing.
- The Olympics are held in different countries and therefore different timezones each year. Even allowing for the fact that the IOC do things like run swimming finals in the morning in Tokyo to hit US primetime, nothing beats the Games being live in primetime in your region. Delayed coverage only goes so far in a world with smartphones and instant results. If I already know that Russia won the gymnastics team gold, maybe I don't bother tuning in?
- Each Olympic cycle brings its own set of competitors and countries' sporting strengths. Four years (or five) is a long time, and in many sports, competitors only get one or two bites of the Olympic cherry. It's only the rarest of athletes who compete in many more. So perhaps a dominant swimmer from your country might bring record ratings in Rio, but five years later in Tokyo, the new swimming superstar comes from somewhere else and previous local interest in swimming will have waned a bit as a consequence.

Those would seem to me the key factors that determine general audience interest in Olympic cycles. Not viewers turning off because the German gymnastic team is wearing unitards.


Adam

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAKgmY4DQ8MmV4ULp291N%3DtrUBO62uOvLsFGV1Mj%2Bi9fxiEbDRg%40mail.gmail.com.

PGage

unread,
Jul 28, 2021, 5:37:22 PM7/28/21
to tvor...@googlegroups.com
Agreed Adam, although I would argue that the rational presumption is that, to whatever degree the German Women’s leotard reduced the sexual allure of the Olympics, it is not one of the reasons for the large ratings decline. The burden of proof is on those who claim it is.

Proof may be too strong a word here, but the kind of evidence I would be open to is that ratings in sports that have significantly de-sexualization women athletes are down more than ratings for comparable sports that have not done that.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages