4 ms·

Who lives vicariously through sports reporters though? If she wants to connect with fans she can do an AMA, IG Live, stream on Twitch, whatever. There's no reas

Who lives vicariously through sports reporters though? If she wants to connect with fans she can do an AMA, IG Live, stream on Twitch, whatever. There's no reason why she needs to hand her time over to magazines or blogs asking the same repetitive questions when she can reach her audience directly without the middle men. "Traditional" press isn't needed to grow a brand anymore. Social media is key.

nindalf 5y ago
You’re right, social media is essential to growing the number of fans. And yet, the TV interviews do two important things - it reaches an audience that’s watching the game live and might not have social media. My dad, for example, would watch the post match interviews but he wouldn’t create social media accounts for this. And secondly, social media posts are choreographed while post match interviews are raw, unedited and “real”. Seeing a human being vulnerable and in pain elicits sympathy from us, makes us invested in their journey, creates the parasocial relationship I was talking about. Again, maybe Osaka has reached a stage in her career where she doesn’t benefit as much from doing it, but she did benefit from decades of Serena Williams and others doing these interviews. They grew the sport to the point where the prize pools are $10M+.
- kristjansson 5y ago
  The issue I see is that pain you talk about is overwhelmingly inflicted by the journalist doing the interview. “How do you think your father (who passed recently) would feel about your win/loss” and all that. Perhaps that wasn’t always the case, it the only ‘parasocial’ connection I get from watching those is sympathy for the athlete subjected to them. Maybe Osaka is benefiting from others past participation, but I think she’s right in identifying that the audience today (at least her audience) does not demand or even want that sort of interaction

nindalf 5y ago

You’re right, social media is essential to growing the number of fans. And yet, the TV interviews do two important things - it reaches an audience that’s watching the game live and might not have social media. My dad, for example, would watch the post match interviews but he wouldn’t create social media accounts for this. And secondly, social media posts are choreographed while post match interviews are raw, unedited and “real”. Seeing a human being vulnerable and in pain elicits sympathy from us, makes us invested in their journey, creates the parasocial relationship I was talking about. Again, maybe Osaka has reached a stage in her career where she doesn’t benefit as much from doing it, but she did benefit from decades of Serena Williams and others doing these interviews. They grew the sport to the point where the prize pools are $10M+.

kristjansson 5y ago
The issue I see is that pain you talk about is overwhelmingly inflicted by the journalist doing the interview. “How do you think your father (who passed recently) would feel about your win/loss” and all that. Perhaps that wasn’t always the case, it the only ‘parasocial’ connection I get from watching those is sympathy for the athlete subjected to them. Maybe Osaka is benefiting from others past participation, but I think she’s right in identifying that the audience today (at least her audience) does not demand or even want that sort of interaction