When organizations launch a new initiative, they often have a clear narrative in mind: the story they want to see reflected in the media and the message they want audiences to take away. But once that initiative enters the public conversation, the narrative is no longer entirely theirs to shape. Media coverage and competing storylines all influence which aspects gain traction and which fade into the background.
For PR professionals, the challenge is often managing the gap between the narrative an organization wants to build and the story that takes shape in the media. When a new initiative attracts negative attention, criticism can quickly become a dominant part of the coverage, prompting communications teams to shift into a reactive mode: addressing concerns, defending the initiative and trying to change critics’ minds. But changing minds is not the only way to change the balance of a conversation. Sometimes, another approach is to broaden the conversation by giving the media more relevant and compelling storylines to cover.
The US Open Mixed Doubles offers a compelling example of this dynamic. Its revamped format in 2025 received criticism and became a prominent part of the media conversation, but it did not define the narrative entirely. Our analysis of the media coverage across 2025 and 2026 shows that while criticism remained, its share of the narrative declined as other storylines became more prominent in coverage.
The analysis is based on approximately 10,000 media mentions per year across online, print and broadcast (TV and radio) coverage. Coverage was reviewed and categorized by the narratives and themes represented in each mention. Themes were not mutually exclusive, meaning individual mentions could contribute to multiple theme totals.
2025: When the Change Became the Story
In 2025, the United States Tennis Association (USTA) overhauled the US Open Mixed Doubles Championship, turning it into a standalone two-day event held during Fan Week, ahead of the singles tournament. The changes were significant: teams were formed in part through combined singles rankings rather than solely on doubles results; matches adopted shortened, fast-paced scoring through the semifinals; and prize money increased fivefold, with the winning pair receiving $1 million. While the changes were designed to bring greater visibility and star power to the event, they also set the stage for much of the debate that followed — particularly around the role of doubles specialists and the competitive legitimacy of the new format.
The resulting media coverage reflected both the scale of the changes and the debate surrounding them. Event Rescheduling and Format Changes was the largest theme, accounting for 34% of the coverage, while Doubles Specialist Backlash represented 11%. Together, these themes show that the revamped event itself was a major focus of the initial coverage, while questions about its impact on doubles specialists added a critical dimension to the conversation.
However, the coverage was not only shaped by the conversations surrounding the new format. Sinner’s Withdrawal and Replacement Pairing (23%), Alcaraz-Raducanu Fan Interest (16%) and Commercial and Broadcast Success (19%) created additional storylines around the event, giving the media other angles to cover. Meanwhile, Errani-Vavassori Protest and Victory (12%) combined two closely connected moments in the same storyline: the pair’s public criticism of the revamped format and their subsequent victory in the event.
Taken together, the coverage shows that while the new format generated criticism, the revamped event also gave rise to a broader mix of stories centered on its players, personalities and competitive outcomes.
2026: When the Players Became the Story
The 2026 media conversation shifted from the revamped format toward the players and stories surrounding the competition. Two themes from 2025 carried into the second year: Commercial and Broadcast Success and Doubles Specialist Backlash. However, the balance of the conversation was different, with Doubles Specialist Backlash falling from 11% of coverage in 2025 to just 4% in 2026. Meanwhile, Serena Williams’ Return accounted for 59% of coverage, making her partnership with Carlos Alcaraz the defining storyline of the event and adding a major player-driven dimension to the conversation.
The outcome on court offered another notable contrast with 2025. While Errani and Vavassori’s victory had given doubles specialists a prominent moment of vindication in the inaugural event, 2026 was won by Karolína Muchová and Jakub Menšík, two primarily singles players. Yet the Muchová-Menšík Title Win theme accounted for just 1% of coverage, compared with 59% for Serena Williams’ Return. The contrast highlights how much more attention the media coverage placed on the star-driven storyline surrounding the event than on its eventual champions.
Alongside this shift in coverage, the USTA also made a direct structural response to ongoing criticism by introducing a Mixed Doubles qualifying pathway. Coverage highlighted the addition as a new opportunity for doubles specialists while also questioning its impact on the broader structure of the event.
While the coverage data cannot establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between these storylines and the decline in criticism-related coverage, the shift in composition is notable. Compared with 2025, the media conversation featured more player-driven stories and fewer stories focused on the format itself, creating a different mix of storylines for media to cover. At the same time, the qualifying pathway illustrates that this shift did not occur in isolation from direct responses to criticism; structural changes and player-driven stories developed alongside one another as the event evolved.
For PR teams, this illustrates an important distinction: organizations cannot fully control which narratives gain attention, but they can create opportunities for other relevant and compelling stories to emerge.
Broadening the Conversation: Creating More Storylines
The US Open Mixed Doubles shows that when an initiative attracts criticism, addressing concerns does not have to be the only focus of the communications strategy. In 2026, the USTA introduced a qualifying pathway amid ongoing concerns from doubles specialists, while media coverage also became increasingly centered on the players and stories surrounding the competition. For PR teams, this suggests that responding to criticism and broadening the conversation can work alongside one another. The question, then, is not only “How do we respond to this criticism?” but also: “What else can we give people a reason to talk about?”
Building on that idea, the broader insight for organizations is to think beyond responding to the narrative that already exists. A strong communications strategy can balance both approaches — addressing legitimate concerns directly while also creating the conditions for a broader conversation, one where criticism can remain part of the story without becoming the whole story. This could mean identifying authentic human-interest, personality-driven or competitive angles early and creating opportunities for those stories to develop, rather than waiting for the news cycle to determine what gets attention.
This analysis was conducted by Michelle Neri and Karisse Decena of Agility PR Solutions’ media intelligence team.
