Notes for Remarks by Richard W. Pound
Women in Sport Conference
Montreal, May 17, 2002

The Marketing of Women and Sport

Thank you for your very kind invitation to be here today. I am delighted that this Conference is being held and even more delighted that it is being held in Montreal. In addition, I am pleased to have a chance to participate as part of your extensive program and to offer some observations on the subject of marketing.

You may wonder whether I am at all qualified to speak about marketing, given my singular lack of success in marketing myself last summer, but perhaps such strengths as I may have lie in the direction of marketing others, rather than myself.

I propose, on this occasion, to depart somewhat from what you might expect from a "marketing" perspective. This will not be a speech to describe how to generate millions of dollars for women in sport.

Perhaps the starting point in any discussion of marketing is to go to the dictionary, where marketing is defined as "the action or business of promoting and selling products or services." If we parse this definition, there are several key elements: action or business; promoting and selling; and products or services. As we explore the concept in today's context, it is important not to lose sight of any of these elements.

First, the concept involves action. Second, it embraces the notion of a business. Both are significant. Marketing is not passive: it involves carrying the idea of something to someone else, someone who may need to be convinced to respond in the manner sought by the actor. It involves the concept of a business, that has a goal, almost invariably connected with the idea of profit or advantage to be gained. This does not necessarily mean that a monetary goal is paramount, but there must be an identifiable purpose to the activity. The key, of course, is to identify that purpose and to propose an activity designed to achieve that purpose.

The third element is that of promoting and selling. Again, at the risk of becoming pedantic, I refer to the dictionary meaning of "promotion," which suggests "activity that supports or encourages," "the publicizing of a product or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness; a public campaign," and "the activity or business of organizing such publicity." To "sell" involves "to persuade someone of the merits of, make enthusiastic about."

And, finally, a product or service. "Product" in this sense means "the result of an action or process." The concept of service is, perhaps, somewhat more marginal in this discussion, but might be extended to "the action or process of serving, an act of assistance."

All of this is, admittedly, somewhat abstract. In the context of the topic of these remarks, it now falls to rendering the concepts applicable to the position of women in sport.

First, why is the topic of the conference even relevant? Clearly because there is a perception of some element or degree of shortfall as it relates to women in sport. It is a perception that has some degree of recognition as a real issue. And a perception that has, at the very least, more than mere anecdotal reality. Women have not achieved the degree of recognition, prominence or importance that they consider appropriate, or that gender equity suggests ought to be the case, or that numerical analysis would imply as commensurate with their position in democratic society. Add to these factors the distribution of intelligence quotients, education and social competence and the evident disparity becomes even more apparent.

Why is this? Obviously, there is some element of residue from the hunter-killer tradition of many of our societies, but that is becoming a more distant factor and one that is no longer supportable as a determining consideration. The traditional role of women has undergone a dramatic change in recent memory, despite the biological imperative of child bearing and child rearing that continues to place the burden of such activities on their shoulders. Women now participate in virtually every important aspect of modern society, in addition to their roles as primary care-givers of children, as workers, professionals and even soldiers. There is an element of change and of challenge to the dominance of the male position that is resisted by those who have enjoyed the former status notwithstanding the demonstrated competence of women in the same fields. No one gives up privilege willingly, all the more so when there is no demonstrable merit to such position. The more undeserving the position of privilege, the greater the resistance to its surrender.

That analysis is the easy part of the problem. Finding the solution is the real challenge. It is not a solution that can be imposed. The answer lies in changing the dominant attitude and that is the marketing challenge.

Not much more than a century ago, the modern Olympic Games were revived. Their purpose was to put sport at the service of society and to make sport universal. The difficulty with such an admirable objective was the set of social handcuffs that existed at the end of the 19th Century. In that era, it meant men of a certain social class, the gentleman amateur. The working classes were excluded, as were women. Unthinkable as that concept is today, it was equally unthinkable for it to be otherwise at the time. Sport for the working classes simply did not exist; those who might have participated did so as a means of earning a living, as professionals, who were not permitted to compete with the amateur, because, since their livelihoods depended upon their results, they could not be relied upon to compete in the spirit of sport. Women could not compete because they were not considered as strong enough to partake in such manly activities. Nor were they to be trusted with such important matters as voting, these weighty considerations being considered as equally beyond their abilities to comprehend.

The past century has seen cataclysms beyond anything that society has ever experienced. In the course of the many revolutions that occurred, sport has become democratized and extended to women and the working classes, to the point that it is almost a matter of human rights. Barriers have been broken down. New political systems have emerged that were unthinkable in 1894. Women vote and hold important political, social and professional positions. They compete in the Olympic Games in sports that were once the exclusive domain of men. I remember one of my first Sessions of the IOC in 1980, when the issue of the marathon for women was discussed in the course of a meeting of men only, most of whom were over 70 years of age. There was a momentum in favour of refusing to add the event to the programme of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. The ostensible ground for this was that women were not strong enough to endure such an event. As the youngest member of the IOC at the time, despite the conventional position that the young should be seen, but not heard, I urged the members not to decide against the event, especially on those grounds. There might well be some basis for refusing it, such as lack of experience in world championships, but, I said, whatever the IOC might decide, it must not be on the idiotic basis that women were not capable of running the length of a marathon. It has always been my view that, if the marathon distance were to be 40 miles instead of 26 miles, it is just as likely that a woman might win as a man.

Experience, I believe, has borne out my view. Women now compete at levels that exceed those of the men of the time when such decisions were made. I competed in the 1960 Olympics in swimming. One of the most exciting races in swimming in 1960 was the men's 400 metre freestyle, a highly tactical race, won by the legendary Murray Rose of Australia in the Olympic record of 4:15. Girls now regularly go faster than that, through 400 metres on their way to the 800 metre event. So, on the playing fields, women have arrived. Their performances are the only marketing they need; they do not have to persuade anyone. They are already in their faces.

Instead, it is in the board or council rooms that women need to assert their presence.

And that is where the marketing begins. Oddly enough, the first "sale" is probably not to those entrenched in power, who are almost overwhelmingly male. It is, instead, to women themselves. A level of interest needs to be generated that will support the effort and the time it takes to get to the top of the heap. No one has ever accused most male sports leaders of being out there behind everyone's back, splitting the atom. But there is a tremendous investment of time and effort in progressing through sport organizations and women have to convince themselves that the investment is worthwhile. The fact of the matter is that very few sports organizations work from the bottom up, so, until you begin to approach the top, the chances of exerting much influence of a policy nature are slim indeed. If you want to influence change, it is important to figure out the channels and get close to the people who can make things happen.

Assuming the "internal" sale is made, the next phase of marketing is to get into position to make a difference to the organization. That will vary, of course, according to the nature of the organization and the interests of each individual. Generally, it will involve serving on committees, the identity and importance of which will, again, vary with the particular organization. In some cases, they may be the technical committees; in others, the long-range or strategic planning committees; or marketing or finance; and in others, communications. Picking one's place is a matter of judgment and happenstance.

Once there, the marketing begins in earnest. In most organizations, the 90-10 rule applies: 90% of the work is done by 10% of the people. It is almost always possible to find your way into the 10%. One does not have to start off as chair of the committee to effectively run it. If you control the paper, you control the work of the committee. You exercise editorial control of the work product; everyone has to respond to your draft. (When I was secretary of the COA - as it then was - in the late 1960s, I always used to say that it did not matter if I ever became president, so long as I was able to write the minutes of the meetings.) Volunteer to be the rapporteur of the committee or for the project and concentrate on writing well and inclusively. The organization as a whole may not know right away who was responsible for a good job, but the committee members will, and the informal networking that is a factor in every organization will spread the word. It does not take as long as you might think to become indispensable and to become known as the person "who can get things done."

One piece of advice, that is not confined to women, but applies equally to everyone who hopes to become established in an organization, is to pick your niche (in marketing terms, your "market") in which to begin. We have a good example in Canada with the late Carol Anne Letheren. She started with officiating in gymnastics and used that to become the gymnastics director on the board of directors of the national Olympic committee. Her breakthrough came as chef de mission of the Canadian Olympic team in 1988, when she handled the Ben Johnson crisis so effectively that when the president of the NOC resigned a couple of years later, she became the NOC president and was coopted as a member of the IOC. She was aware enough that because of the marketing profile that I had within the IOC, she would have to pick something as far away as possible from that field if she was going to make her personal mark in the IOC. She chose the educational portfolio and had become vice chairman of the Education Commission and would certainly have succeeded in becoming Chair of that commission, but for her untimely death last year. Anita De Frantz has done much the same with the athlete portfolio and, more recently, with women in sport. Charmaine Crooks has concentrated on representing athletes very effectively on several commissions.

It helps immeasurably to be able to function collegially outside the meeting rooms, since an astonishingly small percentage of the real decision-making actually occurs in the formal meetings, especially if the controlling group has decided what the decisions will be before the meeting occurs. To be influential, you have to be there when the consensus is forming. In Canadian national organizations, it is a distinct advantage to speak both languages. In international organizations, two languages should be regarded as a bare minimum. Do your postcards during the meetings, not during the coffee breaks or meals and receptions.

Good marketing is not rocket science. Nor can it turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. What it does is to make sure the qualities of a product (or person) are brought to the attention of those who matter in a manner that will have the desired effect. That effect is to increase awareness of competence and to create a favourable impression. To create awareness, one has to be present and to generate a share of mind. As Merlin is reputed to have said, in one historical novel, "Those who would be noticed by the gods, must first place themselves in their path."

There is no 8-second sound bite cure to the marketing problem. Attitudes take time to change. I remember how long it took for my profession to accept women lawyers. Long after they had demonstrated in law schools that they were at least as good as male students, there was a great reluctance to hire them as lawyers. There were many rationalizations, but that is all they were; there was no good reason whatsoever not to hire them. Even so, it took a good twenty years longer than it should have for women to break through and then to rise to the top of the profession. The biggest hurdle now remains, in law as well as in sport, the disproportionate share of responsibility assumed (or thrust upon) women in the rearing of children. I cannot think of any segment of our society that has managed to solve this problem.

I am reminded of the observation by Françoise Giroud that "Equal for the sexes will be achieved when mediocre women occupy high positions."

The IOC has established guidelines with respect to women in the administration of sport. I confess to some ambivalence about such arbitrary "quotas." I can see some very short term value in focusing attention on the issue, but quotas are very much a two-edged sword and can be an insulting situation as easily as a positive influence. Few able women would want to get into a position just because they are women and the rules provide that a certain percentage must be women. That is a complete trivialization of their capacities. In addition, because it is a quota, the danger is that the organization will delude itself that it has "solved" the gender problem by meeting the quota and look no further than the technical compliance with a rule that is not of their own making and that has been forced upon them. Instead, there must be a genuine and open acceptance of the indubitable fact that women are every bit the equal of men in the committee rooms and that they have just as much to offer as their male counterparts. Quotas are the antithesis of marketing; the difference between tariff barriers and free trade.

The product you are marketing as women is competence, judgment, energy and enthusiasm. In addition, you bring a different and more inclusive manner of achieving consensus that can be particularly valuable in international organizations, where so many different perspectives, cultures and traditions have to be accommodated and molded into concerted actions. The product is good and there are "buyers" of that product out there, even if they have an unfortunate tendency to wear blazers and smoke cigars. They just may not yet know that they are buyers.

That is Marketing…