I saw this article a few days ago about Yi Jianlian and the Nets. The story is Yi, how he came to the Nets, how he is working with the Nets, and how the Nets are trying to market him to the 650,000 Chinese Americans in the New York area. I’d be willing to bet that the Asian-appeal will probably attract a good number of others as well, especially Korean Americans, since there is a large population of Korean people around the same area.
I think people are realistic about the strategy:
David Carter, the executive director of the University of Southern California’s Sports Business Institute, said marketing international players could be harder than branding American-born athletes.
“You can’t simply go in and market him to an ethnic audience just because he looks like they do,” Carter said. “The only way he has credibility is if he performs and carries himself well.”
I’m not that big of a basketball fan, but I agree with the notion that he could be a big draw for Asian Americans. Something that entered my mind at the same time was why marketers seemed more eager to embrace Asian sports stars than literary figures. Literary figures, in my mind, have the ability to make a greater impact on society than sports figures, yet marketers always first look at sports.
I think there are a number of reasons for this. First, there’s more money involved–writers just sell books, while sports figures draw live crowds, make money off TV, endorsements, signature clothing, etc. I guess writers can make movies too, but that doesn’t always happen.
Second, it’s more straight forward–in an athletic contest, you just have to win. There’s no politicking, controversies over cultural interpretations, or quibbles over style. Just win! It’s a much simpler pursuit.
Third, it’s a much simpler achievement to digest. You can watch Liu Xiang run, and you know whether he wins if you see him cross the finish line first. With literature, you have to read the book, digest it, discuss it, etc.
It’s not a racial thing either–for years, high literary work has been subsidized by pop culture. Michael Crichton and Tom Clancy both make much more money than any literary fiction writer today, and they’d be the first to acknowledge that their writing is not at the same level of complexity as a V.S. Naipaul or a Cormac McCarthy. It’s just the way it is. Tocqueville predicted this would happen when he analyzed American capitalism in the 1800′s, and sure enough, nothing has changed.
What this means is that we need to accept that high literature won’t be the moneymaker that people expect. We often here testimonies by Asian American writers who complain that investors/agents say their work won’t sell. What this means is that people will have to look at literature, evaluate it, and then make decisions on whether or not to invest in it, based on its merit. Payback in most cases will be the good that literature creates in society, and it may or may not create decent returns on investment for those who put money behind Asian American literature.
Looks like I derailed a sports post in order to talk about lit. 
Sports are important too.
No related posts.
But here is an...