The professional golf circuit is desperately seeking sponsors, and that is no surprise in this economy. Still, hidden in the profile of that industry's core consumer, there may be a helpful clue. Consider what Carl Prine wrote in a recent Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article.


The typical follower of both the male and female circuits is a married, college-educated white man approaching or ensconced in middle age. About half work as professionals – lawyers, doctors and the like – or managers. For those who travel to events, two out of five boast an annual income of $100,000 or more, according to surveys released by sponsors and the PGA and LPGA tours.
Let's see... if married, college-educated white men are the LPGA's (as well as the PGA's) primary audience (as noted above), does the design/approach of the LPGA site really work? While it is by no means pink-washed in the lazy marketing to women way, the copy/tone/style does lean a bit more feminine than necessary.
With men representing the core group of those following such talented professional athletes, it doesn't make a lot of sense that the LPGA site's Q&A column starts with: "What is your favorite store to shop in?" Then, there are the profiles of the 2009 female rookies of the year, who answer questions about their favorite places to travel and who they are most looking forward to meeting on the tour. Hmmm. Do you think the men (or women) studying up are really interested in that?
Of course storytelling and athlete interviews are an effective way to make these pros more accessible or "like us," but in this case the lightness of the presentation may not best reflect the LPGA for its core audience - men. The LPGA, though started, specifically, by, about and for women, actually doesn't reach its current customer very well using such methods. So - does it make sense to market this "women's sport" in such gender-specific ways? No.
Realizing that "men's" and "women's" tours are necessary mainly for physical strength gender differences, what would happen if the marketing of the PGA and LPGA were merged? The inherent tone would need to became a bit more gender neutral (for male and female fans alike), for one - but that could well be beneficial. Take the general success of ESPN (and all its media properties), for example. They didn't start a "for women" ESPN, but folded in these amazing female athletes and sports along the way and throughout their "products." It turns out the coverage still very much works for men, as well as women - who are all first and foremost raging sports fans.
My point is this: Sometimes "women's this or that" doesn't need to be marketed to only women (especially if it turns out women aren't the market!). The efforts can still be more framed by women's ways of thinking/relating (as in the storytelling/profiles example), BUT should be developed to reach the male customers too.
The Olympics and ESPN have done very well in gender-integrating sports coverage. They make it about the athletes and their dedication/training and backgrounds, which appeals on an inclusive level. They leave the cliche male or female elements out - and thus, avoid unnecessary gender polarization. In this case, where men are really the bulk of the audience/fan base, the LPGA can stop with the "favorite shopping sites" and "why you love this spa or that one" questions.
If the LPGA were to go back and truly connect with its core audience, I'm betting they'd find those men skip right over the Q&As and head to the statistics anyway. Serve those guys better, and you will find women respond to the less patronizing approach. Better yet - do this and you should have less trouble landing sponsors who may not have room for "marketing to women" in their budgets.