These posts are far too focused on "who is hotter" rather than actual marketability. Does attractiveness matter? Of course. But it's much more about relatability and a general aspirational quality.
Think of a 16-year-old girl or her mother. The girl is probably going to follow athletes who have something in common with her, who she'd like to be friends with, who she would one day like to be like. The mother is going to connect with athletes who remind her of her daughter or her daughter's friends.
On one hand, think of Dalilah Muhammad. Very attractive, born in the US, but she's black and Muslim, and for whatever other reasons (maybe her choice!), I don't think she's quite connected with the broader U.S running community. I'm a big fan of hers, but clearly attractiveness and top-class results are not enough here
On the other hand, consider the former swimmer Missy Franklin, who I view as the essence of marketability. She was also highly successful, and is certainly not unattractive, but I don't think she's ever been viewed as a potential supermodel. Yet she had this bubbly positivity and had lots of friends. She seemed like the girl who would be the captain of your daughter's swim team who your daughter looks up to. Franklin was "America's sweetheart", and there was lots of reporting on how she would fit in her races with all the conventional high school experiences like prom.
To be a bit more provocative: marketability is not about looking *hot*, it's about looking *rich*.
Parker is certainly attractive without question. I also think she has an edge in that she seems a little more down to Earth and relatable than a lot of other distance stars. She doesn't seem to take herself seriously and runs low mileage along with cross training. She doesn't care about tangents. Her Floridan laidback cool in interviews gives her the edge to me.
Parker is certainly attractive without question. I also think she has an edge in that she seems a little more down to Earth and relatable than a lot of other distance stars. She doesn't seem to take herself seriously and runs low mileage along with cross training. She doesn't care about tangents. Her Floridan laidback cool in interviews gives her the edge to me.
A key mark is being missed here.
As long as they can both stay on top, a Dan vs Dave style competition can be set up for Katelyn vs. Parker. Much like Dan O'Brien and Dave Johnson, Katelyn and Parker are very different. But we should be able to like Katelyn in accordance with Parker and vice versa.
Personality / comparison wise Katelyn reminds me of Shalane. Parker reminds me of Laura roesler. Both were marketable, but obviously in the end if one ends up being successful and the other ends of in an injury cycle, the successful one will be more marketable.
Both will be marketable for awhile - Parker bc of looks, flirtatious/ innocent personality, and willingness to go for it. Katelyn because of her killer tactics, team oriented focus, longevity/teen phenomness and humility. If one or both of them aren’t successful beyond college, neither will be incredibly marketable long term, but both will be more than an average person in that situation (eg angela bizarri, Sheila Reid, etc)
Parker is certainly attractive without question. I also think she has an edge in that she seems a little more down to Earth and relatable than a lot of other distance stars. She doesn't seem to take herself seriously and runs low mileage along with cross training. She doesn't care about tangents. Her Floridan laidback cool in interviews gives her the edge to me.
A key mark is being missed here.
As long as they can both stay on top, a Dan vs Dave style competition can be set up for Katelyn vs. Parker. Much like Dan O'Brien and Dave Johnson, Katelyn and Parker are very different. But we should be able to like Katelyn in accordance with Parker and vice versa.
I'm not knocking Katelyn. I love her. Still, if you were to ask me cold bloodedly who I think has the marketing advantage, I'm going to say Parker. Her whimsical cool and model looks are hard to avoid. Let's be real. Now, this is not say that KT is unattractive, she just isn't what Parker obviously is. Looks aside, championships and medals will obviously factor into this as their careers develop. It remains to be seen whether Parker will show her full potential though she is dripping with raw talent in addition to her natural charisma. KT will be alright. Both could sign major pro deals and get great management sponsorship if that was their focus right now.
Parker is certainly attractive without question. I also think she has an edge in that she seems a little more down to Earth and relatable than a lot of other distance stars. She doesn't seem to take herself seriously and runs low mileage along with cross training. She doesn't care about tangents. Her Floridan laidback cool in interviews gives her the edge to me.
Parker is certainly attractive without question. I also think she has an edge in that she seems a little more down to Earth and relatable than a lot of other distance stars. She doesn't seem to take herself seriously and runs low mileage along with cross training. She doesn't care about tangents. Her Floridan laidback cool in interviews gives her the edge to me.
what's a "tangent"?
Shortest points around the course...run the tangents..not wide of them.
Are you kidding me, Parker doesn't know how to cut tangents or know where finish line was in post race interview. What part of interview makes her seem bright? All I see is a barbie doll.
and who was more marketable for Nike, Coleen Quigley or Courtney Frerichs?
I think another comparison is Kara Goucher vs. Shalane Flanagan. I could be wrong, but my sense is that Mrs. Goucher was more marketable.
and who was more marketable for Nike, Coleen Quigley or Courtney Frerichs?
I think another comparison is Kara Goucher vs. Shalane Flanagan. I could be wrong, but my sense is that Mrs. Goucher was more marketable.
Not true. Shalane has more than double the followers and her books sold significantly more copies than Kara’s. As for Courtney vs Colleen, you could argue it’s a matter of choice. Courtney does not seem to like marketing herself and is focused on running fast. Colleen is focused on marketing herself and all the other things that surround running fast. I’m not saying Colleen isn’t focused on running fast (have no clue really) but does seem to enjoy the self endorsement bit.
To be marketable, one has to be reasonably attractive (but not model looks), relatable, have some kind of X factor, and want to be marketable.
Which everyone takes the next 2 or 3 steps to be a contender for world's/Olympic teams versus being a good college runner.
I am not sure how many of the constantly injured so I cross trainers ever figure it out and are able to do the volume of top people. Or if you can run 14:30 off 35mpw and cross training...
Why was Anna Kournakova such a hot commodity when she never ranked higher than #8? Because she is/was hot, and sex sells. No one wanted to see Lindsay Davenport, even though she was playing at the same time and was much better.
Valby needs to win a title or make a team next year to be considered more marketable imo. She has 2 runner up finishes. Katelyn has 2 runner ups, 2 titles, 3 xc high school titles, probably a couple track high school titles.
Fast times are great and all but ask any pro and they’ll say they’re rather have a medal.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.