Dolls as more than role models (Sudafed Edition)

Mattel, amid a splashy announcement of new, more anatomically responsible Barbie dolls, introduced a Barbie doll modeled after soccer superstar Abby Wambach last week.

Abby Wambach (at  left), by Harvardton (Own work)
 [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Most media in western New York -- Wambach's hometown is suburban Rochester -- gushed over the big toymaker's announcement. Picking up on Wambach's Twitter posts, reporters marveled at Mattel's recognition of her sports accomplishments by creating an Abby doll. 

Not one reporter, however, asked if Mattel's celebration of Wambach would include some corporate support of U.S. Women's Soccer, the team her heroics helped build.

It's a fair question. At least as viewed through my current Sudafed-affected head congestion. One an insightful reporter should have asked, but apparently didn't.

In fact, Mattel's corporate philanthropy track record speaks well of its support of play, both active and passive. Its philanthropy web pages, while a couple of years out of date, highlight many contributions and grants to a variety of programs and hospitals supporting the needs of children. Including $13 million in cash and $8 million in retail value of toys, in 2013.

As a two-time Olympic champion and 2012 FIFA World Player of the Year, the recently retired Wambach is more than a role model for girls and young women. She's now an influencer. And getting her likeness on a Wheaties box or a Barbie doll is strong evidence of her impact on women's soccer. It also represents an opportunity to leverage attention toward the struggles of the U.S. Women's Soccer team, which now must grow its brand without Abby.

A cause marketing pledge from Mattel -- say, 15% of profits from sales of Abby Barbies going to support her former team, now locked in a labor dispute with U.S. Soccer -- would have more impact than simply marketing a doll in a white No. 20 jersey.

(Note: my nagging sinus malady is receding, and I will be back to full throttle soon. Thank you.)






Popular posts from this blog

Questioning the New York (Times) Athletic Club

Image
The New York Times dropped the axe on its legendary sports department in early July. Sports reporting we read in the Times henceforth will originate with The Athletic, a younger (and perhaps more agile) sportswriting website purchased by the NYT Corp.  You'll find a good assessment of the move here .  As a Times subscriber, I have automatic access to any sports reporting it produces. I won't call it "free access," however, because my ever-increasing monthly rate for a three-day Times subscription surely will include a tithe to cover the Athletic.  But ditching the Times ' sports desk and dispersing its fine sports journalists and photographers to other NYT jobs? That's a loss. Here's why: Conflict of interest: The Athletic allows its staff to report on sports gambling, while some are paid contractors of the sportsbook companies. Is there a Pete Rose-style conflict here? I'd expect so. The Times allowed no double-dipping within its sports staff. The s
Read more

Your hand's already in my pocket

Image
I use an ad blocker, and probably you do, too. Every day, even on websites where I pay a monthly subscription fee, I see a pop-up that say: "We Notice You Are Using an Ad Blocker." And they ask me to turn it off. I don't. I'm already paying for that news website's reporting. Their hands are already in my pocket. And, truth is, I don't mind digital ads that are somewhat relevant to my tastes. Show me an ad for a guitar deal or Ford car parts, and I'll probably read it. Screen shot, unnamed Gannett publication, Sept. 2018 But I don't care about Patrick Swayze's secret son. Or what forgotten 1970s actress Loni Anderson looks like today. (I was more of a Howard Hesseman /Dr. Johnny Fever fan, anyway.) When newspapers relied on print ad revenue, I'd glance at those ads -- and sometimes, I'd bite -- because those ads were for local or regional merchants. They wanted to build a relationship with me.  They didn't try
Read more

Readers get the (drive) shaft in motorsports coverage

Image
In mid-August, the U.S.'s premier auto racing sport will compete at a road racing course in Watkins Glen, NY. NASCAR's brutish Cup series cars will race in this rural community Aug. 20.  May 2023, Charlotte Motor Speedway. (c) DKassnoff, 2023. But, don't expect  The New York Times  to cover NASCAR before then. The newspaper's sports section -- now outsourced to The Athletic, its sportsbook subsidiary -- hasn't covered NASCAR since July 2. That's when NASCAR's drivers competed on the rain-soaked streets of Chicago. The Times provided no coverage of their July 30 race in Richmond, VA, or any NASCAR race since early July. The Times  has focused its motorsports coverage on Formula 1 racing. These are the expensive, open-wheeled, high performance racing teams once called Grand Prix. This class of racing is controlled by another media company: John Malone's Liberty Media, which purchased Formula 1 in 2017 and returned it to profitability. Visit the Times '
Read more