How Far Is Too Far?

The age-old question of how far should we go in order to advertise a product came around again this week, with the revived controversy over the use of “ball girls” at the Madrid Master’s tennis tournament. You can check out some of the pictures on MSN/Fox Sports if you want to. But you already know the story: a pack of models is rounded up from agencies in Spain, asked a few questions about tennis and then issued skimpy dresses with the sponsor’s name and logo on them (and even skimpier instructions about what to do) and stationed at courtside.

Almost as obvious was the immediate response from just about all quarters. People who take the sport of tennis too seriously claimed that having scantily-clad models working on the court made a mockery of the tournament. Easily-offended people claimed that having scantily-clad models working on the court was sexist, exploitive, offensive, or otherwise discriminatory, and some of the players (almost always those who had just lost a match they were expected to win) claimed that having scantily-clad models working on the court distracted them from the game at critical moments.

I should note that the WTA event held in the same venue employs male models in the same role, so it’s hard to make any charge of sexism stick. And the female players certainly don’t appear to have had any trouble keeping their minds on the game. Personally, I have to add that if you can’t keep you mind on a game that allows you to earn millions of dollars a year, travel the world, and generally do whatever you want, you need professional help, not less attractive ball girls. But from a business standpoint, the question this post is actually about is a lot more basic: Is the sponsor employing the models (in this case it’s Hugo Boss) going too far in their efforts to promote their product line? And if not, then exactly how far is too far?

Basic management theory tells us that if an advertising measure brings in more business than the total cost of producing the advertising (including any business lost from people who are too offended by the ad to purchase the product), then the ads were effective. In this particular case, Hugo Boss may appear to be losing a fair amount of business from the easily-offended demographic, but since their key market segment (single males 18-36) is unlikely to be offended by having scantily-clad models police up balls at a tennis match, the business loss isn’t all that high. The cost of employing a pack of models for the duration of a tennis tournament will certainly cost them a fair amount, but when you factor in all of the free publicity generated by the controversy over this advertising measure, I’d have to say it looks promising. And there certainly aren’t any other costs involved; no space to buy in print, no airtime for television to purchase, no billboards to produce, rent and install.

Of course, if you are the sort of person who is offended by the idea of skinny young women in short dresses running around in public, you’d probably say that the overall cost to society is too great to justify whatever profits Hugo Boss makes from sponsoring the “ball girls” in Madrid. But from a purely business standpoint, I’d have to say that the measure is drawing huge amounts of attention from the media and the public, getting the sponsor’s name and logo seen all over the world, and not actually costing very much to produce. It’s hard to see how it could be any better for Hugo Boss. As for the male tennis players, perhaps a dose of saltpeter before each match would be in order…