Diddy to Host Post-Grammys City Gala Fundraiser at Playboy Mansion

2/10/2016 by

Diddy has determined his post-Grammys plans: The mogul will host the CITY Gala Fundraiser at the Playboy Mansion on Feb. 15 following the big show.

Sir Richard Branson, the billionaire founder of Virgin Group, is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at the invite-only, black-tie fundraiser while former 98 Degrees pop star Jeff Timmons will handle emcee duties.

Grammys 2016: All Our Coverage

Branson will participate in a moderated discussion by actress Jane Seymour. Honorees at the event include astronaut Buzz Aldrin (Lifetime Achievement Award) and American businessman and philanthropist John Paul DeJoria (Legacy of Inspiration Award).

grammy

Live performances at the event, which will also feature a celebrity poker tournament, will come courtesy of DJ Paul Oakenfold, Robert “Kool” Bell of Kool & the Gang, Chanel West Coast, the Stafford Brothers and DJ Sarah Robertson. There’s also a fashion show on the schedule from Hemp Blue.

Event proceeds benefit Community Inspiring Today’s Youth (CITY), a non-profit organization that supports and mentors underserved teens and young adults in developing their own start-up businesses in L.A. Sponsors include  AirVuz, JetSmarter, Seed Invest, Bella Magazine, OK! TV, Modern Luxury Angeleno, Foreground Media, Hemp Inc., King Size LED Displays and BlairBones Media.

Grammy Nominations 2016: See All the Nominees

In a statement, City Gala executive producer Ryan Long says: “We are honored to have such an incredible roster of distinguished guests joining us to raise visibility for these important charitable causes.”

This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter & Curated from Billboard for SocialCurrentcy.

Vine Fame: The Social Media Millennials

INSTAGRAM, VINE AND SNAPCHAT: THE SHIFT OF SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING TO MILLENNIALS

The days of text only ads and billboards are a dying breed.

The response that I often receive to this is also the very same: “but why?”

Plain and simple, your audience is not there.

According to this article on Entrepreneur.com, a study done by the Pew Research Center stated that “71 percent of teens use Facebook, making it the most popular social networking platform among 13-17 year olds. Instagram is the second most popular (used by 52 percent), followed by Snapchat, Twitter and Google+.”

If this is true, why not spend all our social media advertising on Facebook? Here is why that is not a great way to target the millennial audience.

Where should we be spending our advertising money?

Millennials want their information fast. In areas where they can avoid wasting time, they will. Advertising spend would be much more valuable in Instagram and Snapchat rather than in traditional advertising spaces like magazines and newspapers.

This is not just unique to Millennials. Past generations have always wanted information faster and the precious commodity of time has not changed, so what’s the difference?

The difference now is that we are no longer limited by our resources to do so.

Enter the world of Instagram, Vine and Snapchat

Vine

The true power of a 7-second vine is found in news jacking, like Samsung’s launch of its Galaxy Note 4, and the caption that you create for it. A vine isn’t so much the quality of the video that is being shown that is important, but rather the idea you are trying to convey.

Why is Vine effective with Millennials?

• It allows users to create videos by themselves fast
• Quick information, seven seconds or less
• Feedback and views allow viewers to see its virility
• Integrates with Twitter

Vine allows its customers to record, pause and record until the 7 second time frame is up. Much like a cartoon and advertisements of old, it resembles the flipbook models of writing on the edges of paper and flipping to create a quick-moving story. This also allows for a lot of humor in the posts when done right.

Here are some examples of how businesses use Vine to capture its millennial audience:

Lowe’s is a great example of how you implement the loop feature of Vine. You can see that both the lint and debris from the vacuum end up creating the dog in the end of the Vine, which allows users to continually watch without realizing they’ve watched it multiple times. This is a feature of Vine that is very under-utilized but when it is done properly, Millennials love to share it. You can see that Lowe’s vine has been looped over 327,000+ times.

Many millennials are cutting the cord on cable and even avoiding paying for pay-per-view fights because they know they can rely on friends to send them Vine’s. Take alook here at the Ronda Rousey & Holly Holm fight Vine. Again, it’s fast, informative and has the power to go viral. Three things the millennial audience loves.

 

Instagram

benjer1 When Instagram announced that they were going to first integrate with Facebook, most questioned why it would not remain separate from another social media site. Their implementation of video and now advertisements have made Instagram one of the best places to advertise currently. But why?

• It’s quick,
• It’s 15 seconds maximum per video
• Continual User Growth for both personal and business use

What better ideal location to find your millennial audience.

Here are some unique things that individual brands are doing with Instagram and the ways that this targets millennials better than other brands:

Ben N Jerry’s (Source: Instagram)

Positives:

• No Text
• Focused on Product
• Good spacing between products
• Featuring top products

Negatives:

• A GIF or short video could have allowed for better brand recognition and exposure (i.e. Moving in a flavor at a time with an arm at a time)

Why Is Instagram so powerful?

Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom states “what advertisers should really latch onto is the fact that Instagram uses Facebook’s demographic data to serve up ads to the appropriate parties…Facebook helps us provide relevant ads to the users. You don’t want a 50-year-old male who is interested in autos seeing an ad for beauty-care products targeted at teens.”

The power of data, combined with advertising is a powerful tool that many have yet to un-tap on this platform. Visual content is the future of social media and the time to find a quality videographer for your business is now.

Snapchat

In an article by AdWeek, “70% of College Students Post to Snapchat Daily while only 46% post to Twitter daily and Facebook a mere 11%. So, as stated previously, Facebook is being used but it is not the future for digital marketers or for those wanting to capture a high volume of potential customers.

Why is Snapchat a powerful medium?

• It’s quick
• 10 seconds max per video/picture
• Disappears after use
• Over 100 Million Users and continuing to grow

With over 5+ billion views on Snapchat each day, companies like ESPN, Mashable, Time, PEOPLE, CNN, Food Network, National Geographic among others have used this space to create engaging content.

Here are some examples of what brands are doing:

• Goldman Sachs using Snapchat Campus Story to recruit new employees
• Buzzfeed creating graphics to screenshot and send to friends
• CNN highlights a story to show what life is like when you make $7.50 an hour
• CNN shows a story conveying the hot topics including racism in interracial families
• Mashable using the power of lists to engage users in reading some User Generated Content (UGC)

 

What’s next for millennials?

It’s time to get with the UGC and use your customers to create effective and engaging content. After all, this is no longer a world of what you say about your brand. Your customers are now your spokespeople and advocates for your brand. Whether that is positive or negative remains in your hands as to how engaging you are with them.

 

Written by:

Ryan Bennion is a content marketing/sports diehard as well as current founder of content marketing agency, B2Marketing. His experience includes stints in telecommunications, health & wellness and home services verticals. He is also currently a 2016 MBA Marketing Candidate at the University of Phoenix.

Color-Blindness Is Counterproductive

Many sociologists argue that ideologies claiming not to see race risk ignoring discrimination.

lead_9601

Jeff Robertson /  AP

How many times have you heard someone say that they “don’t see color,” “are colorblind,” or “don’t have a racist bone in their body?” Maybe you’ve even said this yourself. After all, the dominant language around racial issues today is typically one of colorblindness, as it’s often meant to convey distaste for racial practices and attitudes common in an earlier era.

Many sociologists, though, are extremely critical of colorblindness as an ideology. They argue that as the mechanisms that reproduce racial inequality have become more covert and obscure than they were during the era of open, legal segregation, the language of explicit racism has given way to a discourse of colorblindness. But they fear that the refusal to take public note of race actually allows people to ignore manifestations of persistent discrimination.

For the first half of the 20th century, it was perfectly legal to deny blacks (and other racial minorities) access to housing, jobs, voting, and other rights based explicitly on race. Civil-rights reforms rendered these practices illegal. Laws now bar practices that previously maintained racial inequality, like redlining, segregation, or openly refusing to rent or sell real estate to black Americans. Yet discrimination still persists, operating through a combination of social, economic, and institutional practices.

Concurrently, it is no longer socially acceptable in many quarters to identify oneself as racist. Instead, many Americans purport not to see color. However, their colorblindness comes at a cost. By claiming that they do not see race, they also can avert their eyes from the ways in which well-meaning people engage in practices that reproduce neighborhood and school segregation, rely on “soft skills” in ways that disadvantage racial minorities in the job market, and hoard opportunities in ways that reserve access to better jobs for white peers.

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf recently argued that the academic left errs in attacking colorblindness. He suggested that encouraging whites to be color conscious and to think of themselves in racial terms would encourage the nativism embraced by some Donald Trump supporters—that a heightened awareness of whiteness would produce a sense of persecution, and encourage some to rally in defense of white rights. He contends that there is some merit to colorblindness that has been ignored by what he describes as “the academic left,” which spends too much time focused on nitpicking colorblindness rather than drawing attention to “macroaggressions” such as “racially tinged hatred and conspiracy theories directed at the first black president” or the convenience of labeling Mexican immigrants rapists “despite the fact that first-generation immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans.”

As a presumptive member of the “academic left” that Friedersdorf critiques, I read the post with particular interest. I think that Friedersdorf makes some important points worth more detailed attention from both academics and those outside the academy who are familiar with the debates and concepts he references. For instance, academic debates can often become divorced from broader audiences. It is way too easy for academics in many fields to ground their conversations, disputes, and discussions among other like-minded scholars. He’s right to note that, by and large, academics can do a much better job engaging with folks outside of our ivory towers.

However, there are some misrepresentations in Fridersdorf’s piece as well. Based on a single statement from one book chapter in an edited volume, Friedersdorf makes the sweeping generalization that “the academic left casts all proponents of colorblindness as naïve.” I’ve read books and articles by numerous sociologists who critique the colorblind ideology, and while they find problems with the ways this perspective allows individuals to ignore patterns of racial bias, I’ve never seen any studies that broadly categorize advocates of colorblindness in this way. What’s more important to sociologists are the consequences of how this ideology has implications for social inequality.

My colleague Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, for example, has written extensively about the idea of colorblindness, charting the ways that it functions as an ideology that legitimizes specific practices that maintain racial inequalities—police brutality, housing discrimination, voter disenfranchisement, and others. His book Racism Without Racists is part of a broad set of sociological research that draws attention to the ways that colorblind ideology undergirds bigger, more problematic social issues.

There are more than a few members of the “academic left” who argue that colorblindness is problematic precisely because it offers a way to avoid addressing social problems.

Yet, in addition to suggesting that the academic left casts all proponents of colorblindness as naïve, Friedersdorf also contends that they waste time picking apart this concept rather than addressing “macroagressions” like police brutality and growing expressions of virulent racist hatred.  But Bonilla-Silva, among others, describes the ways that colorblindness sustains these very macroaggressions that Friedersdorf thinks are ignored. In other words, Friedersdorf suggests the academic left wastes time dissecting the concept of colorblindness, and would be better served focusing on more pressing, systemic processes of inequality. But a careful read of sociological literature in this area finds that there are more than a few members of the “academic left” who argue that colorblindness is problematic precisely because it offers a way to avoid addressing these exact social problems. Other sociologists like Jessie Daniels and David Cort focus explicitly on researching hate speech on the internet and the lower rates of crime among immigrants relative to native born Americans, respectively—the very issues that Friedersdorf, by his own admission, charges are important and believes are overlooked by the academic left. Sociologists are actually very involved in highlighting these macroaggressions—and in underscoring the ways colorblind ideology allows them to go ignored.

Advocates of colorblindness, like Friedersdorf, tend to claim that emphasizing whites’ group identity as whites (rather than as individuals) is counterproductive. Rejecting colorblindness and encouraging whites to see themselves as members of a distinct racial group, they argue, will produce nativism. They will cling to, rather than critique, the privileges that whiteness affords, which are jeopardized by a more multiracial society. Friedersdorf calls it naïve to believe that upon focusing on their status as members of a racial group and the privilege and power that affords them, “masses of white people will identify more strongly with their racial tribe and then sacrifice the interests of that tribe.”

This is, in the abstract, a compelling point. The trouble is that the weight of the scholarly evidence directly contradicts this argument. Sociologists like Karyn McKinney, Eileen O’Brien, Joe Feagin, Hernan Vera, and Matthew Hughey, who have studied the pathways and trajectories by which whites become involved in antiracist activism, show that contrary to Friedersdorf’s beliefs, moving away from colorblindness can actually serve as a pathway towards antiracism. In many of these studies, as whites came to understand themselves as members of a racial group which enjoyed unearned privileges and benefits, this compelled them to forge a different sense of white identity built on antiracism rather than simply supporting the status quo. Moving away from the colorblind ideology that sociologists critique—the idea that it’s admirable to profess not to see color, that it’s problematic to see oneself as a member of a racial group—is, according to the research in this area, actually an important step to antiracist activism.

In most social interactions, whites get to be seen as individuals. Racial minorities become aware from a young age that people will often judge them as members of their group.

There’s a strong emphasis on individualism in American culture. Friedersdorf argues that “race is a pernicious concept that robs people of their individuality … the academic left also underestimates how divisive it can be to put anything other than individualism at the center of identity.” But ironically, this focus on individualism is itself a function of group position. Whites, by and large, enjoy the luxury of promoting the importance of the individual, because they benefit from living in a racially stratified society where whiteness is normalized. In most social interactions, whites get to be seen as individuals. Racial minorities, by contrast, become aware from a young age that people will often judge them as members of their group, and treat them in accordance with the (usually negative) stereotypes attached to that group.

Everyone wants to be treated as an individual and recognized for their personal traits and characteristics. But the colorblindness that sociologists critique doesn’t allow for this. Instead, it encourages those who endorse this perspective to ignore the ongoing processes that maintain racial stratification in schools, neighborhoods, health care, and other social institutions. Can color consciousness draw attention to these issues? The research demonstrates that it can lead to more understanding of our racially stratified society and can give rise to a willingness to work for change. So from that perspective, it doesn’t seem worth abandoning just yet.


Originally seen via The Atlantic by: ADIA HARVEY WINGFIELD – A contributing writer for The Atlantic and a professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis. She is the author of No More Invisible Man: Race and Gender in Men’s Work.

The Plight of the Black Academic

education-nelson-mandela-black-educators

Being a black professor at a predominantly white university can be just as uncomfortable as—if not more so than—being a black student at one.

Graduates arrive for commencement at the University of California, Berkeley

Noah Berger / Reuters

In his new book, The Scholar Denied, the sociologist Aldon Morris writes that contrary to the discipline’s preferred origin story, the field of sociology was actually founded by W.E.B. DuBois, the first black person to receive a Ph.D. in the United States. DuBois earned his degree from Harvard, but due to rampant racial segregation at the time, he was shut out of many employment opportunities. He ended up working at Atlanta University (now Clark Atlanta University), a historically black college with few resources, but still managed to do pioneering work in the field of sociology.

Morris describes in clear detail the ways that DuBois’s emphasis on race as a socially constructed—rather than biological—phenomenon threatened white elites of his day, who much preferred Booker T. Washington’s message that blacks should accept and embrace their subordinate status. Furthermore, many white sociologists co-opted DuBois’s innovative research designs, empirical methods, and scientific approach, while failing to credit him as their originator. Morris argues that consequently, DuBois’s centrality to the discipline of sociology and his role as one of the preeminent analysts of race relations have been obscured.

DuBois lived and wrote his most famous books during the early part of the 20th century, but how different are circumstances for black academics today?

The recent student demonstrations at University of Missouri, Yale, Amherst, Emory, and other universities have drawn much-needed attention to the challenges that minority students, particularly black ones, face at predominantly white colleges and universities. There’s a great deal of research—including the work of the sociologists Joe Feagin and Wendy Leo Moore—showing that the conditions black students are protesting are serious, widespread, and often ignored. In one account, Feagin shares a story of a black student who waits after class to ask a white professor a question about that day’s lecture, only to be told “I thought you were waiting to rob me or something.” Another student describes “one of those sad and angry nights” when, walking to the dorm, white students drove by yelling racial slurs and throwing beer cans at him.

In Wendy Leo Moore’s study of elite law schools, she offers similarly wrenching examples. For instance, there is the white professor who punishes a black female law student for discussing the offensiveness of racial slurs, but does not challenge the white male law student who comments during a class discussion that black students are intellectually inferior. As Moore describes, even the ways law schools teach students to focus on “individual intent” means that social, academic, and legal practices that discriminate against students of color can be summarily dismissed if white social actors “didn’t mean any harm.” Thus, no matter how invidious the action, no matter the consequences of the behavior, legal reasoning centers on individual whites’ intentions and discounts the lived experiences of people of color.

For faculty of color, similar processes are frequently at play. In fact, predominantly white colleges and universities may even be more reluctant to recruit and hire faculty of color than students of color. While students matriculate at an institution for a short period of time and then leave, the tenure system means that faculty of color may remain at a university for decades, even a lifetime. With this longer time frame, these professors develop more of a stake in the school, and may be more empowered to push for the reforms many colleges resist. For universities that see no real reason to change their existing practices, traditions, and organizational cultures, bringing in a critical mass of faculty of color is often a stated goal that never materializes.

Indeed, when it comes to faculty diversity, the numbers suggest a pretty bleak picture. Blacks constitute less than 10 percent of the professoriate, and these numbers thin out the higher the academic rank. And as lots of research shows, when these professors are in the numerical minority, their experiences aren’t all that different from what DuBois encountered as he attempted to navigate higher education in the early 20th century: exclusion, marginalization, and the consistent message that, as a black person, he was not suited for the academy and that his ideas were unwelcome. Indeed, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent suggestion that blacks are best suited for “less advanced, slower track school[s] where they do well” are strikingly similar to the arguments about black inferiority that DuBois confronted in the 19th century—the very assertions he was able to debunk with scientific research.

Many faculty members and administrators will dismiss this lack of diversity as a pipeline issue, claiming that they simply can’t find “qualified” candidates of color to fill faculty positions. But as was the case in DuBois’s day, many historically black colleges and universities are populated by faculty of color, many of whom are exemplary researchers and teachers who work with a fraction of the resources offered at elite, predominantly white universities. “Qualified” candidates of color are there. They simply are not proportionately represented in historically white institutions.

For faculty of color who do seek and find employment at predominantly white schools, research suggests that the issues they face are in some ways similar to those that students of color have described in the recent wave of protests. For example, in a recent study, the professors Ebony McGee and Lasana Kazembe noted that black faculty were racially stereotyped at work, including being generally expected to entertain and perform for colleagues in ways that were not expected of their white counterparts. Other black professors report that if they study issues related to race, their research is assumed to be less credible, serious, and rigorous than their white peers—even if white colleagues also study racial issues. Black faculty also do a disproportionate amount of service work—jobs that are expected of workers but not explicitly required. These can include mentoring and advising students and junior faculty, serving as a faculty advisor for campus clubs, or being on committees.

And there are gender dynamics present as well. The sociologist Roxana Harlow found that black female professors had to manage gendered racial stereotypes that they were “mean” and “cold” in the classroom, stereotypes that are commonly applied to black female professionals more generally. And this says nothing of the racialized assumptions that many students (and fellow faculty) bring with them to the university—that black Americans, and by extension, black professors, are less knowledgeable and credible than their peers of other races, regardless of the subject matter they teach. This means that in practice, black faculty routinely face students, coworkers, and administrators who assume that they are not truly qualified for or capable of faculty work—all the while concealing the understandable feelings of frustration and annoyance that result. The overall message is that, like black students, black faculty simply do not belong.

Though these issues are complex and won’t be solved easily, universities could begin doing more to support faculty and staff of color. DuBois defined the premier problem of the 20th century as the issue of the color line, and this certainly shaped his experiences in higher education. It doesn’t have to be this way today.


Originally seen via The Atlantic by: ADIA HARVEY WINGFIELD – A contributing writer for The Atlantic and a professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis. She is the author of No More Invisible Man: Race and Gender in Men’s Work.

Why it matters that Serena Williams is on the cover of Sports Illustrated

Updated by  via VOX

vox

Since 1954, Sports Illustrated has declared the most groundbreaking, important person in sports each year, starting with British runner Roger Bannister, the first known person to ever run a mile in under four minutes. This year the magazine has named its ninth woman ever to the list: tennis champ Serena Williams. While it may not be a shock that this dominant female athlete was named Sports Illustrated’s 2015 Sportsperson of the Year — she won the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and the French Open, after all — it’s actually kind of rare, given the gender breakdown over the years.

While American Pharoah devotees shared their dismay over the choice Monday — the Triple Crown–winning horse won SI’s popular vote to get the title — writer S.L. Price recounted Williams’s tumultuous (and mostly victorious) year on the court.

Her major title bids came with plenty of health battles: an all-consuming flu, bruised bones, and busted knees, to name a few. She returned to Indian Wells Tennis Garden in March after a 14-year boycott following a matchup against Steffi Graf marred by jeering and racist comments. This year also included Williams’s disappointing loss at the US Open in September, when she lost to 43rd-ranked Roberta Vinci, missing her shot at the calendar Grand Slam and the chance to beat Graf’s record 21 career major title wins.

Off the court, though, Williams is an outspoken, stylish, confident social media darling and sports mogul with devoted fans around the world. At 34, she’s also been able to compete longer than many of her peers have been able to. And that’s why her newest title should come as no surprise.

Serena Williams is the third solo woman to receive the honor

Since Sports Illustrated started awarding athletes and coaches with its top title, the few women who have won it also shared the honor with men. Williams is one of only three women with the title who did not share the moment with a man — and she’s also the first since Mary Decker in 1983 to have the solo title. Meanwhile, 24 individual men have been named Sportsman of the Year since 1983. Among women, the title has also evaded traditional team players aside from the collective 1999 titleholders, the US Women’s National Soccer Team, after their monumental World Cup win. Here’s how women have fared on the list since 1954:

  • 1972: Billie Jean King, tennis (shared with men’s college basketball coach John Wooden)
  • 1976: Chris Evert, tennis
  • 1983: Mary Decker, track and field
  • 1984: Mary Lou Retton, gymnastics (shared with Edwin Moses, track and field)
  • 1987: Judi Brown King, track & field, and Patty Sheehan, golf (shared with six other athletes)
  • 1994: Bonnie Blair, speed skating (shared with Norwegian speed skater Johann Olav Koss)
  • 1999: US Women’s National Soccer Team
  • 2011: Pat Summit, University of Tennessee women’s basketball coach (shared with Mike Krzyzewski, Duke University men’s basketball coach)
  • 2015: Serena Williams, tennis

Choosing outstanding women athletes isn’t a groundbreaking feat for another sports authority. Since 1931, the Associated Press has named one man and one woman each as athletes of the year (Williams was named to that list in 2002, 2009, and 2013).

It’s rare to see a woman on the cover of an issue of SI who isn’t a model

While the Associated Press started publishing a gender-equal list in the 1930s, things haven’t been quite as equal for Sports Illustrated. After 61 years of publishing, SI’s weekly issues rarely feature women athletes on its covers. A University of Louisville study of the magazine from 2000 to 2011 found that women appeared on 4.9 percent of all Sports Illustrated covers; about a third of those featured women of color.

“Of the 35 covers including a female, only 18 (or 2.5 percent of all covers) featured a female as the primary or sole image,” the researchers wrote in the International Review for the Sociology of Sport. “Three covers included females, but only as insets (small boxed image), or as part of a collage background of both male and female athletes.”

Interestingly, more female athletes appeared on the covers from 1954 to 1965 than they did from 2000 to 2011. After that period, the distribution spread. By 2011, the average rate at which women were featured on the cover was about one woman per year, not counting the magazine’s highly anticipated annual swimsuit issue, despite growing participation of women in sports. The researchers attributed this to the rising dependence on corporate sports leagues, mainly the big four: the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB, Pacific Standard reports.

But SI has been slightly better in recent years

Considering 2015 was an incredible year for women in sports, at least in the United States, Sports Illustrated naming a woman to its annual title should be no surprise. With Williams’s big year in tennis, MMA fighter Ronda Rousey’s tough-talking near dominance, the US women’s national soccer team’s World Cup win, and the debut of professional women’s hockey, among many other landmark moments, you’d think we’ve reached a new level of respect for women athletes.

(SOURCE: Ronda Rousey on a 2015 cover of Sports Illustrated)

In some ways, we have. This year’s survey of SI covers shows an uptick in female presence: the University of Connecticut’s women’s basketball team’s uncanny national championship win, Rousey being called the “world’s most dominant athlete,” multiple covers on US soccer, and one on Serena Williams’s grand slam effort in August.

Last year’s SI covers featured one special Olympic preview with four covers — three of which featured women athletes — an issue with gold medal skier Mikaela Shiffrin, University of Connecticut women’s basketball star Breanna Stewart as one of six special March Madness covers, and Little League World Series phenom Mo’Ne Davis.

In 2013, there were no female athletes on the covers, and 2012 featured the US women’s Olympic gymnastics team, an all-text cover about Title IX, and Olympic gold medalist Kayla Harrison, a judoka. Prior to that, as mentioned above, the rate was about one female athlete per year.

Overall coverage of female athletes in sports media is pretty bad

Naturally, sports coverage isn’t all about Sports Illustrated. Most televised sports coverage generally goes to men’s pro and college football, basketball, and baseball, according to a 2015 study published in Communication & Sport. The study, which evaluated 25 years of sports coverage among ESPN’s SportsCenter and Los Angeles’s broadcast network affiliates, showed 3 percent of all sports coverage was dedicated to women’s sports. To be male in sports is to be the default — for example, the term March Madness nearly always means the men’s college basketball tournament, even though the women’s tournament goes by the same name.

When it comes to the amount of coverage throughout this tournament, ESPN’sSportsCenter devoted 83 on-air stories to the men’s tournament in March 2014, versus eight about the women’s tournament that year. Researchers often found the coverage was simply blah when focus turned to women athletes.

“We found that men’s sports were presented with far more enthusiasm, and excitement, the commentators consistency deploying vocal inflections, high-volume excitement, and evocative descriptors,” the researchers wrote. “Listening to commentators describe a women’s sports event was usually like hearing someone deliver a boring after-thought, with an obvious lack of enthusiasm.”

With that, it’s probably no surprise that only 10.2 percent of overall sports coverage was produced by women, according to the Women’s Media Center’s annual report on women in the US media — and that’s a 7 percent drop from 2014’s figure.

Sportsman and sportswoman? Or sportsperson?

One significant factor this year is that Sports Illustrated has called Williams the Sportsperson of the Year, taking on a more gender-neutral term than sportswoman. Does this mean the next man named to the list will also be called a sportsperson, rather than a sportsman? Until sports loses all of its gendered divisions — and who knows when that’ll be? — I guess we’ll know whenever the publication names the next man (or horse, perhaps?) to the list.