Six months after winning the gold medal in diving, Australian Matthew Mitcham still has yet to secure a major sponsorship or endorsement deal. We have written about this extensively on Outsports, but the issue came to the fore again with the profile of Mitcham in the current issue of the Advocate.
There are two schools of thought on whether the lack of endorsements stem from homophobia. We will present both cases and would love input and insights from you.
Although there has been some discussion with several sponsors, not a single company or brand has yet stepped forward to announce that Mitcham has received a major endorsement, calling into question whether his visibility as a newly minted gay icon may have hurt his chances at a lucrative deal. …
His management team wants to steer him away from the hokey, cover-of-the-cereal-box deals so often thrown at medalists, and would prefer to focus on categories like fashion, fragrance, and luxury. They’re also trying to take him beyond the gay-friendly brands one would expect to latch on to him in a heartbeat.
Mitcham expressed frustration in an interview this week, saying, “It is tough. A lot of people are having a lot of trouble, myself included . . . like I haven’t signed anything yet but we are working on things and there are some things in the works and there are some things that are close.”
Point: It’s not homophobia
I am not naive enough to think there is no homophobia in sports, and that some companies would be leery about using an openly gay athlete as a spokesman. This is one reason often cited for why prominent athletes don’t come out. But I have yet to see proof that homophobia is what is keeping Mitcham from getting endorsements. I agree with this from the Advocate piece, which is similar to what I’ve been writing since the Olympics:
Marketing expert Jim Andrews, a senior vice president at leading sponsorship development firm IEG, says the lack of endorsements is not surprising. “Opportunities really are limited for most Olympic athletes,” he says. “We always talk about who’ll win the marketing gold, but when we go back and look at the winners, it’s a pretty small group that’s gotten substantial money. From a corporate standpoint, these folks drop off the radar screen [after the Olympics]. And diving is not a sport that we are tuning in to watch every Sunday.”
In addition, Mitcham did not return to Australia immediately after the Games as did most other Olympians, opting instead for a two-month holiday in Europe. While getting away after such an intense training and competition phase is understandable, Mitcham missed a great opportunity from a marketing standpoint.
He is a charismatic charmer who would have been in great demand from the Australian media, from news and sports programs to talk shows. His profile would have stayed high and caught the eye of companies looking for a spokesman. Instead, he came back to little fanfare in October. In today’s ultra-saturated sports environment, the Olympics were old news by then. Throw in the accelerating global financial crisis spawned by Lehman Brothers collapse in September, and Mitcham was entering a changed endorsement landscape, one where even Tiger Woods was dropped by GM.
We also don’t know how selective Mitcham and his representatives have been. I was struck by this line in the Advocate piece: “His management team wants to steer him away from the hokey, cover-of-the-cereal-box deals so often thrown at medalists.” If that represents their thinking, then they are making a big mistake. An openly gay athlete on the cover of a cereal box is groundbreaking, not “hokey.” What an impact something like that would have had.
Until shown otherwise, I think the lack of endorsements reflect the relative obscurity of diving and unfortunate timing. In addition, the is no deadline for getting an endorsement, and Mitcham has hinted that some might be forthcoming.
Counterpoint: It is homophobia
Ben Finzel, an openly gay PR executive with Fleishman-Hillard, takes the other side. In a blog post and in e-mails with Outsports, he makes the following points.
I think Mitcham’s orientation is the biggest reason he’s not getting endorsements. You make a good point in your post about timing, but I think Mitcham’s selection for two [major Australian] sporting honors demonstrates that his accomplishment have cut through at least a bit of limelight/profile issue you raise. And Mitcham is quoted in the Advocate article as saying that he doesn’t want to be a one-hit wonder. He sounds committed to being out and engaged in the marketplace (maybe that’s a change from previously as you point out). … From the PR/marketing standpoint, I’d say homophobia is still a pretty big problem.
Andrews of IMG shares some of Finzel’s views, telling the Advocate about Mitcham: “That story is exactly what you want as a sponsor. It pulls on the emotional heartstrings. You look for that. You can create a strong platform around pure performance, but most marketers want that emotional tug as well. Here’s a guy who had the courage to come out. It’s not easy to be out in any sport. And his win was tremendous because it was so unexpected.”
We would love to hear what you think about all this, especially people in the marketing area. Is Mitcham’s lack of endorsements due to homophobia, circumstances or a bit of both?
Update: Two days after posting this, Mitcham signed a deal with Australia’s largest phone company.
on Feb 5th, 2009 at 10:12 PM
As I wrote in the Outsports Forum, Matthew Mitcham is a better role model for young people, gay and straight, than other Olympians who emerged from Beijing. Any company would be well served to have this accomplished, gifted, mature, and poised athlete as their spokesman. An extended holiday should not be a bar to access to potential endorsements, especially in light of how other accomplished Olympians spent the ensuing months, i.e. splashed across tabloids and gossip columns on the arm of the latest starlet, cocktail waitress du jour, or person famous for being famous, or pictured taking bong hits.
We must bear in mind that Matt did not accomplish the achievements of others, such as Michael Phelps, that would gain him the possibility of brand name endorsements. We also must take into account the fact that these endorsements often go not only to athletes who exceed expectations, but who are also American, part and parcel of the lion’s share of the intended market of such products.
With these caveats in mind, homophobia must also be taken into account. There is still a reluctance to celebrate the achievements of individuals, who do not fit into preconceived ideals of manhood. At a time when we are welcoming change, wouldn’t it be wonderful if the mainstream media actually embraced an individual who embodied ideals that all look up to (discipline, perseverance, dedication, hard work, and maturity), and who could best represent those qualities?
on Feb 5th, 2009 at 10:22 PM
When it comes to endorsements, especially in this day and age — when news cycles are accelerated because of the instantaneous flow of info through the Internet, and when more and more people are able to get the proverbial 15 minutes of fame thanks to the web, YouTube, “reality” television and so on — you have to strike while the iron is hot. Matthew Mitcham disappeared for two months. I’d say that’s 90-95 percent of the reason for his lack of endorsements.
on Feb 5th, 2009 at 10:25 PM
I’m inclined to agree with the argument that Mitcham’s gold in Olympic diving is not enough to propel him into the ‘household name’ status, and, given that his management is “steer(ing) him away” from certain types of advertisers in favor of things he may not be as suited to endorse, this does not help his case.
Outside of the gay sports (or diving) world, I don’t see him as being internationally famous, and he might be best served by representing Australian companies, where he would have more name recognition. Motivational speaking, attending corporate events, modelling, local and regional advertisers, etc. One should not turn up one’s nose at these things. To think he might have a fragrance named after him like David Beckham or his own shoe like Michael Jordan, is perhaps a (big) stretch.
on Feb 5th, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Quick: Name as many Olympic athletes as you can — Michael Phelps …. Mary-Lou Retton… uh.. the flying tomato guy … bottom line is that the names that stick with the public are rare.
Unless you follow the sports closely, there’s probably one athlete per Olympic Games that stays in the limelight. (For any one you can remember, try and come up with a SECOND name from that same Olympic year.)
I definitely agree with two big things that have been said — 1, “steering him away” from “typical” endorsements like the cereal box is suicide. Sorry, but you play the media game correctly because you’re a trained seal and you bark when they want you to bark. Turning down a product endorsement because it’s degrading or career damaging is one thing. Turning down Wheaties you’re “too good for the cereal box” and are holding out for the purfume.. well, that just comes across as prima-donna. (What’s the perfume going to smell like anyway — chlorine??)
Second, he’s not American and a lot of these big endorsements are American companies with American products. Olympics are about runaway patriotism and that means your own players. Of all those names you remembered up there, any of the non-American? We should be asking why any of the Oz companies aren’t picking this guy up (which may make the homophobic angle a bit stronger in his home country.)
But while that may be 25% of it, I think the other 75% is his management’s advice which sounds really suspect. When you’re just starting out, you will, as they say, “attend the opening of an envelope”. You get your name and face out there as much as possible in any way you can. In a way, it’s like suddenly going from middle school (where you’re on top) to the next year at high school where you’re on the bottom and starting over. He may be at the top of the Olympic game, but he’s at the bottom of the media game — the next level, and he’s acting like he’s already at the top of that game when he’s not.
on Feb 5th, 2009 at 11:04 PM
His marketing team has talked him into being something that is hard to do in the first place and thats take a small revenue sports like Diving and make it into the NBA dream team in the 92′ olympics for basketball . I think that with no real coverage during the games hurts can kill you, even if he did have alot some people just dont have that special something that firms are looking for.
Look at Carl Lewis he went through the same thing back in the 80’s and the 90’s ( Carl might be gay) he wanted and thought he was going to get a major contract and after about a year everyone just felt he wasnt a good fit. I know of past olympic gold winners who have gotten alot of attention in that sport, but out side of that you really dont have much to go off of. I commend the man for making it in his sport, but dont you think his marketing team should go after speaking engagments, Swim wear, Pool equipment and things of that nature.
My dream is to make it in greco wrestling, but the idea of sponsors is something i and many other athletes know is just to pay for your travel and to live off of while you train full time anything else is just a plus.
Another though after 6months most gold medal winners go back into training and look for the next 4 years to come. Greg luganis i am sure was not over run with sponsor deals after the 88′ olympics in diving!
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 1:47 AM
I’m incline to say that Mr. Mitcham’s lack of endorsements is because he is an openly gay athlete. We are as a society aware that there are gay athletes in high school, college and in professional sports. To think or say otherwise is an extremely lewd and unjust allegation.
Unfortunately, most of these sponsors use their picks as role models. This can be seen with Michael Phelps and his current contract with Kellog’s which is due to run out at the end of this month and will not be renewed on the basis of Mr. Phelps’ inappropriate activity. These companies know there are parents out there who would feel weird having their child idolize an Olympic athlete who just happens to be gay. Children tend to take on after their idols, and there are parents who are misinformed or plain stupid to believe that their child will turn gay by choice because of the athlete they idolize.
As for the argument that his holiday in Europe is the reason he hasn’t been endorsed or even remotely offered something is asinine. These companies are run by people, normal human beings who are able to understand that people need a break from life sometimes. They would just sit back and snatch the man up when he returned back to Australia. It’s a shame that homophobia has indeed played such a negative role in the modern sports world.
The other gay athletes that attended the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics have also received nothing, this just further proves that homophobia or rather fear of less consumers have played a part in this situation. By less consumers I mean food companies or clothing companies may get ousted if they are seen supporting a gay athlete. Although, my argument can be seen as faulty considering there’s a list of 200+ major companies and retail chains that have given money to the marriage equality group and support same sex marriage. Rather a gray area, isn’t it?
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 1:50 AM
I side primarily with Jim on this one. First, diving is a hard sport to break through on the endorsement front. Second, the economy is awful everywhere. Third, TAKE THE CEREAL BOX COVER IF OFFERED. Matthew really sounds like the most wonderful person in the world and I am a huge fan but visibility is visibility and I don’t think being too selective will work, sort of like dating. The pickiest of the lot find themselves home alone on Saturday night.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 1:52 AM
Oh, may I add that Mitcham doesn’t sound very Aussie. I kept thinking all along the video the Advocate had how the man is in bed. I’m sure that’s ‘normal’, right?
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 2:30 AM
Mitch shot himself in the foot. The fact that this debate is only taking place in gay sports spaces show one thing – nobody else cares and he missed his chance. Hope he lives and learns.
More importantly, DJ, are you Jim’s special friend?
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 4:29 AM
How did he shoot himself in the foot? I think it’s the fact that his achievements or anyone’s got rather trumped on by Michael Phelps. All summer I heard Phelps this and Phelps that. I’m truly tired of hearing, seeing or reading something about him; Michael Phelps.
Mitcham is a new name, not many know about him despite being in the Olympics. I’d never heard of him till a week or two after the Olympics when his story came about.
And no, I’m not. How is that remotely “more important”? LOL
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 5:02 AM
He shot himself in the foot by disappearing on vacation and thinking he’s too good to promote whatever pays him upon his return. I have no sympathy. If you are a bad business person it doesn’t matter who you orgasm with, you are just bad at business.
As for you not having a torrid love affair with Jim, I was just curious because we kind of know about Cyd and his husband, but Jim remains the hot enigma.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:44 AM
Australian society is to blame, When I was in Australia after mitcham had won the gold a high number of major newspapers just ignored the acheiement, they went on and on about (straight) Stephanie Rice and her win at the olympics.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 9:56 AM
It’s great to see that this commentary is eliciting such thoughtful, interesting responses. Thanks to Jim and Cyd for putting it out there. A few other thoughts (from the counterpoint guy above) –
-To be effective or to “count” as sponsorships, Mitcham need not be associated only with American products. The world does not revolve around the United States and an endorsement in Australia or Europe or anywhere else would be just as “good” as one here. The point is that other than his role in the upcoming Sydney Mardi Gras, no one is beating down his door for endorsements (at least not right now). In comparing the situations of Mitcham and Phelps, I was trying to make the point that straight athletes are much more “acceptable” than gay ones. The broader point here is that we still have progress to be made in corporate engagement that matches and mirrors the truth of our lives.
-As we blogged on the Out Front Blog last fall, Mitcham was featured on an Australian postage stamp. As the Advocate mentions (and I highlighted), Mitcham received two Australian sporting awards last year after the Olympics. That’s hardly low-profile, at least in Australia.
-This conversation is not just happening on “gay sports blogs” because we raised it on the Out Front Blog (www.outfrontblog.com) on Tuesday. The Out Front Blog is managed and coordinated by openly gay public relations professionals working at one of the world’s largest communications firms. That’s a much different stage. I’d also add that this “gay sports blog” is pretty major and very influential in online communications – not a bad place to be having this conversation at all.
Thanks again to Jim and Cyd for raising many excellent points and continuing a really useful conversation.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Ben Finzel’s comments are spot on. And I agree that it’s not likely Mitcham would have gotten a U.S. sponsorship.
We might also mention that, in the current global climate, sports sponsorships are actually going away as more and more corporations shorten sail. I know from friends in Australia that the money meltdown has hit Down Under almost as hard as here. So Mitcham might be caught in a “perfect storm” situation where many factors — not just possible homophobia but the global economy and his decisions on strategy — add up to no sponsorship so far.
Mitcham got a great deal of mainstream positive publicity and recognition in his homeland — including athlete of the year awards — even after he came back from his vacation. These awards might well have offset any Australian homophobia. It’s possible that, if the meltdown hadn’t happened, Mitcham might have been offered something. But Australian companies may have decided not to approach him because of their flagging sales.
The type of sponsorship Mitcham’s rep said he wanted — fashion, fragrance and luxury — are areas of retail where consumers are cutting back. Even the well-to-do are being impacted by the meltdown! All the financial reports these days indicate that high-end retail sales are way down. Companies like Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein aren’t doing well. So it’s possible that Mitcham’s rep’s strategy was a mistake that is now too late to rectify.
Oh…and if Phelps keeps on getting negative publicity, he may find himself without a sponsor too.
My own thanks to Jim and Cyd for starting this discussion.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 11:32 AM
I personally don’t think Mitcham’s lack of sponsorship has much to do with homophobia. There were 302 gold medals given out at the 2008 Olympics, 76 of which were won by athletes who took home more than one (33 athletes). That leaves 225 other athletes besides Mitcham who won a single gold medal, some of whom won other colour medals as well. How many of them got endorsement deals? Is anybody still talking about Anastasia Davydova, Britta Steffen, Angelo Taylor, or Bradley Wiggins outside of their home countries? I doubt it, and they all won TWO gold medals. To take this a little further, there were 8 Australians who won multiple medals, at least one of them being gold. I have no idea how they are doing with endorsements in their homeland since I’m from Canada, but I would think that at least a few of them haven’t done too well on the sponsorship trail either.
I personally think Matthew Mitcham is a great guy and has done something for the gay community that no other man has done before. He really is a great role model for young athletes, but so are a lot of other Olympians who aren’t getting any endorsement deals. I think he should be capitalizing on his appeal in the gay community becasue that’s really the only place where he can set himself apart other equally deserving athletes that competed in Beijing. I personally wish him the best of luck in finding sponsorship so that he can continuously compete at the highest level through the next Olympic Games.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Just checked the headlines, and learned that Phelps’ Kellogg sponsorship did go away, and he has been grounded by the swim association. I wonder what will happen with the Rosetta Stone sponsorship and a few others.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Dear Ben,
I stand by my word. “Gay sports blogs” was not meant as a slam, I’ve been coming to this site for 8 years now. I was actually pointing to how much more enlightened and forward thinking we are on certain issues. Still, this conversation while happening on Out Front is not happening on CNNSI, ESPN, Huffington Post, NY Times, Yahoo, etc. On that note, NBC slighting Mitcham’s partner during its coverage was something I read about on non-gay oriented sites too.
Face it, having a lax attitude didn’t help this guy. But in the last week he’s on the cover of the Advocate and all over the internet in a speedo looking hot, so if he can’t swing a gay focused deal from this coverage, then like I said, he needs to live and learn.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 12:21 PM
I can’t agree that homophobia has any role in Mticham’s lack of endorsements. First, the Advocate story makes it clear that Mitcham’s overly picky management is hindering his endorsement deals while the clock on his 15 minutes of fame is winding down. Second, Australia is not a bastion of homophobia where a gay athlete, or any person, is shunned; Mitcham even was on a postage stamp, a highly visible honor.
Jim’s point is right: diving does not carry the cache that swimming does. It’s not an accurate comparison of Mitham to Phelps. How about Olympic diving legend Greg Louganis, who was still fully in the closet during his multiple-gold medal reign. He also was not as celebrated as gold medal swimmer Mark Spitz years earlier. Homophobia was not a factor then. What endorsements did Louganis get? None that I recall.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 3:44 PM
You’re overthinking this issue. Diving is, at best, a fringe sport (with homoerotic overtones), in terms of the American public’s interest in it, so excelling at the sport does not translate into significant promotional value in the United States. Mark Lenzi, a straight, photogenic diver from Indiana, won a gold medal in Barcelona in 1992. I don’t recall that he obtained any significant promotional gigs. The more interesting hypothetical is whether Michael Phelps would have succeeded (leaving aside the pot incident) in obtaining promotional offers if he had been openly gay while competing. I think his achievements, and the public’s greater appreciation of and personal experience with the strength and stamina required to swim fast and far, would have secured him those promotional opportunities, regardless of any issue of sexuality.
on Feb 6th, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Well, one thing hasn’t be brought forth to the table. He hasn’t sent out any cover letters to these companies promising them such and such in exchange for endorsement. While the idea sounds cliche, I’m sure there’s at least one company out there that would do such, right?
on Feb 7th, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Well unfortunately, like on has already said on here, that you have to strike while the iron is still hot. Of course, he is a great role model for not only the GLAAD community but for other striving athletes that want to give up like Mitch did. To come back and retrain and nonetheless, stopping the sweep of the Chinese divers, that was incredible. But here in the US, the diving was such an afterthough on the last full night on the Olympics… Great story, especially in Australia, but it may be too late…. Maybe he can jump on Kellogg’s now that Michael Phelps has been let go due to his bong. Which in itself… Come on, Kellogg’s get over it!
on Feb 8th, 2009 at 2:30 AM
I’ve gone over the idea of Kellog’s endorsing Mitcham, it’s a stretch but I don’t see why they can’t do it. I would argue that I don’t know of any diver ever being endorsed from whichever respected country they were from. So point me in the right direction? No touching though, got enough of that today.
Couldn’t he get an endorsement from Speedo or TYR?
on Feb 8th, 2009 at 4:56 AM
He’s Australian. That’s what he has against him. A non-American just isn’t going to catch the media’s attention unless you’ve won multiple golds like Ian Thorpe.
on Feb 8th, 2009 at 9:20 AM
Good News,
It appears Mitcham has secured sponsorship from Australia’s largest telecommunication company – Telstra. The details of the sponsorship are provided in the link.
on Feb 8th, 2009 at 9:21 AM
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,25022637-5001021,00.html
on Sep 26th, 2009 at 12:11 PM
It is a great problem of mankind.
You need some arguments and laws to find.
I’m waiting for a very strong,incredible love.
May be it’s going by train or flying high above . . .