In the September/October issue of "Golf for Women," Sally Jenkins ponders why Meg Mallon doesn't have any major sponsors despite her stellar year. I'll ask the readers one simple question: which of the following would you guess is more marketable?
Instead, Jenkins concludes that Meg simply doesn't have "it" - that special quality that "makes companies pay a lot of money to put their names on your hat and bag so that your smile and their logos will flash across billboards and TV screens together." I disagree that Mallon doesn't have "it" - she does. It's just that my "it" is "an extra fifty pounds."
Face it, folks: sex sells, and advertising is all about selling. Anna Kournikova hasn't won squat in her pro tennis career, yet companies fall all over themselves to slap their brand onto her sexy, calendar-selling, bikini-wearing, drool-inducing body.
We're adults here, and reasonable, intelligent ones at that. We appreciate the talents and skills Meg Mallon brings to the game of golf. We like her personality, her game, her family, and her winning. Would we say she's sexy? No. And that's fine… until you ignore reality and ponder the question "why doesn't Meg have any sponsors" without stating the obvious: Meg Mallon is not sexy.
Unfortunately, it's really as simple as that.