Marketing, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic...(Sports Illustrated)

THE “curse of Gillette” became a familiar refrain in 2009, when three of the world’s biggest sports stars who featured in one of the company’s commercials fell on rough times. Tiger Woods, an American golfer, was revealed to be a serial philanderer, while Thierry Henry, a French footballer, faced accusations of cheating during a match against Ireland. The misfortune that struck Roger Federer, the Swiss tennis star, was simply a decline in form. But that decline has continued, and big brands like Gillette are today looking at a different world number one in the shape of Serbia’s Novak Djokovic. Right now, he may struggle to woo them.

As an individual sport, tennis needs highly marketable winners if its commercial sponsors and, ultimately, the tournaments themselves are to prosper. Besides Gillette, car makers, confectioners and banks have all rushed to capitalise on Mr Federer’s success, looks and affability. That, in turn, has sucked money into the sport. Of the US Open’s $200m in revenues last year, about $60m came from commercial sponsors—many looking for exposure while Mr Federer’s sublime talent was also on display.

Unfortunately, Mr Federer did not even feature in the final. That was contested by Mr Djokovic and Spain’s Rafael Nadal. And while the Spaniard won in 2010, the Serb has since become the dominant power in tennis. For the commercial side of the game, this “changing of the guard” is a nerve-jangling transition. Mr Djokovic is less telegenic than Mr Federer or, indeed, Mr Nadal (some have teased that he bears a resemblance toBeaker, a puppet from “The Muppets”, a children’s television show). His technique is neither as graceful as the former’s nor as brutal as the latter’s—even if it is currently more effective than either. While the Swiss master is sometimes described as an artist, and the Spaniard, unsurprisingly, as a matador, there are no easy metaphors to apply to Mr Djokovic.

In the past he has seemed arrogant, and his chest-thumping, T-shirt-ripping celebrations can appear to go beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable court behaviour. His proud mother has made some unfortunate comments, too. (“The king is dead. Long live the king,” she famously told reporters when her son defeated Mr Federer at the 2008 Australian Open and went on to win the title.) He was accused of gamesmanship as recently as this year’s US Open final, which he won, when he took a prolonged medical time-out after losing the third set. Nor does his nationality help. Serbia’s international image is still tarnished by the wartime atrocities of the 1990s and its difficult relations with neighbours.

Yet there is much to like about “Nole”, as he is called by friends and fans. He is as fluent a speaker of English as Mr Federer, and funnier in interviews. Indeed, his quirky sense of humour, which has earned him “The Djoker” as a nickname, could help him appeal to a different type of sponsor from Mr Federer’s. Having once delighted crowds (if not rivals) with his impersonations of other players, he has recently been showing off his dance moves at the conclusion of matches. Perhaps most importantly, he keeps winning. This season he has racked up one of the most impressive won-lost records (68-2) in the history of the professional game.

Even so, recent data from Nielsen seems to support the doubts. The research company has devised a model that measures an athlete’s overall endorsement potential in the all-important American market, based on a national survey of more than 1,100 people from different backgrounds. Sportsmen getting a so-called “N-Score” of between 30 and 49 are classed as “All-Stars” (above 100 they become “Superstars”). Less than 30 and they are merely “Starters”. Mr Federer gets an N-Score of 43, while Mr Nadal’s was 34 last year. But a survey conducted in July 2011 awarded Mr Djokovic a derisory 14, only two points higher than he got in 2010, before his run of success had begun.

Mr Djokovic’s US Open victory may help. Mr Nadal’s N-Score was only 13 in 2006, when he had already won the French Open twice but figured in just one other grand slam final (Wimbledon’s that year). Two and a half years later, after he had claimed his first Wimbledon title and beaten Mr Federer in the final of the Australian Open, it had risen to 47. Marketeers will be hoping for a similar bounce in Mr Djokovic’s N-Score the next time round. Worryingly, however, the survey that produced his recent low mark was conducted after his Wimbledon victory.

Just what the N-Score means for the business of tennis is perhaps best illustrated through the example of Babolat. Although the French sports company was the original inventor of natural gut strings, it did not begin making tennis rackets until 1994. It remained relatively obscure for a decade. But in 2004 it secured the backing of a then-unsung Rafael Nadal for a new racket called the Aero Pro Drive, which has since become one of the world’s most popular. According to the United States-based Tennis Industry Association, which conducts research on various aspects of the game, Babolat claimed more than a third of all sales at specialist tennis stores in America last year, when Mr Nadal won the US Open. In 2005, before Mr Nadal became a star, its share was half as big. Babolat is now as recognisable a tennis brand as Wilson and Head, which have been in the racket-making business for much longer.

Endorsement potential also has dramatic implications for an athlete’s own earnings ability. Last year, Sports Illustrated put Mr Federer at the top of its rankings of non-American athletes by earnings in 2009, when the Swiss star made a total of $62m in prize money, endorsements and other income. Mr Nadal came ninth on the same list, having scooped over $27m. To put this in perspective, Mr Djokovic this year joined an exclusive club of players who have won three grand slams in the same calendar year, and broke records for his haul of Masters 1000 titles. Yet as the season draws to a close, with only two Masters 1000 events and the World Tour Finals left to go, his prize money from all wins amounts to less than $11m.

Of course, some athletes remain marketable even when they are not winning, just as others lack appeal when they are. Unlike Mr Woods and Mr Henry, Mr Federer was not dropped by Gillette, and appears to have attracted new commercial partners since he stopped dominating the majors (think Mercedes cars and Lindt chocolates). But this is probably cold comfort for advertisers—and especially those, like Babolat, in the business of tennis itself. Mr Federer’s N-Score is surely buoyed by his stature as the greatest of all time, based on grand slam victories. As his star begins to fade, advertisers need successful and popular replacements to light up their prospects. Mr Djokovic is certainly successful. But if he is to avoid being a disappointment he will have to match Mr Federer on more than just his game.