Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Good Riddance To Booth Babes

Posted by Zonk on Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:53 AM
from the they-could-be-fining-folks-that-dress-poorly dept.
Colin Campbell has an editorial at Next Generation in which he applauds the decision to fine risque outfits worn by the traditional 'booth babes'. From the article: "Exhibitors at E3 employ a whole range of human beings to attract attention to their booths and excitement to their live events. The ones who attract the largest crowds are either celebrities (fair enough), well-loved industry-creatives (quite right) or so-called 'booth-babes', often behaving in ways that at least mimic the lowest sort of strip joint. People do not dress this way in normal life, not even in Los Angeles. There are some companies that seem more susceptible to this kind of technique than others. It's difficult to imagine, say, EA or Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo bothering with this nonsense."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by archeopterix (594938) * on Wednesday January 25 2006, @10:56AM (#14558131) Journal
    Those vile practices reinforced the social trend to objectify females. I solemnly applaud the decision to ban them. Now take me to the pictures! What? No pics?!?!?!?
  • Boo! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Golias (176380) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @10:57AM (#14558139)
    Games are entertainment. Cute girls are nice to look at. Is that so wrong?

    If you want things more family-friendly, why not just apply the old anime-con cosplay standard of "30% coverage minimum, inlcuding all the obvious places", instead of applying an ambiguous rule that outfits can not be "too risque"?
    • If you want things more family-friendly, why not just apply the old anime-con cosplay standard of "30% coverage minimum, inlcuding all the obvious places", instead of applying an ambiguous rule that outfits can not be "too risque"?

      it's simple politics: if you don't specify what you mean, when you have to justify actions later you can use your earlier ambiguity.
    • Re:Boo! (Score:4, Informative)

      by AlterTick (665659) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:08AM (#14558290)
      If you want things more family-friendly

      Thing is, E3 isn't really supposed to be a "family event", is it? I mean, didn't they move it from weekend to weekday scheduling like four years ago because they thought it was getting to be too much like a "leisure time" attraction? And haven't they always required that all attendees actually be verified company employees, i.e. NO KIDS? I think the organizers want to turn it into some dignified, somber stuffed shirt convention. Not likely. GIVE US OUR BOOF BABES!

    • Re:Boo! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MikeFM (12491) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:52AM (#14558869) Homepage Journal
      As someone that lived in Las Vegas for a while and went to many conventions I'll say that this change is enough to make me much less likely to go. That was half the fun of conventions. Without the girls you're left with a lot of tired sweaty people who look like they aren't enjoying themselves. Not a nice enviroment. Seriously conventions are just not very fun to go to. I'm constantly unimpressed with the 'new technology' being shown off so the shows really need something.
      • Re:Boo! (Score:3, Insightful)

        Seriously, if booth babes are the only thing you look forward to in a convention, then I'd argue you don't belong there. Let someone else from your group or team go instead. The "new technology" may not interest you, but I'm sure there's someone who has a vested interest in the product, who doesn't need a gaggle of booth babes just to be attracted to the conference.
  • by F_Scentura (250214) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @10:57AM (#14558141)
    The rules have always been in place, they only recently decided to start "enforcing" them.
  • It's difficult to imagine, say, EA or Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo bothering with this nonsense

    Developers, developers, developers.... ;)

  • Did you just say GOOD riddance to booth babes?

    That ain't right.
    • by Krach42 (227798) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:06AM (#14558270) Homepage Journal
      Did you just say GOOD riddance to booth babes?

      That ain't right.


      I noticed that weird wording also.... I can only imagine that this is because this is slashdot. I mean, only slashdot could be UPSET about a mostly naked woman getting between them and a game...
  • by Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @10:59AM (#14558175)
    yeah, Sony would just have guys to rape you.

    What? Too far?
  • Oh well (Score:3, Funny)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @10:59AM (#14558179) Journal
    It's not like I was getting into the event anyways.

    This just means more booth babes for other events.

    I see this as a good thing.
  • by Godeke (32895) * on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:01AM (#14558201)
    Considering that in reality E3 is supposed to be an industry event (I have attended the seminars wearing my game programming hat) and yet recently it has become a giant circus similar to Comdex right before the collapse, I think this is a good move. The press day in particular will be helpful (more so that the clothing requirements): the poor people in the booths are besieged by loser fan boys while the real interviewers can be recognized by the desperate looks of someone under time pressure they wait for a bunch of store clerks to stop hassling their interview target. Or they just get pushy, which I don't blame them for.

    Reducing the booth babe exposure (literally) won't prevent people from hiring pretty young women and placing them in the booths. I don't think that practice will ever end (check any other convention and see who is most prominently displayed in each booth: the best looking women of the company or some "spokeswoman" who they hired because the women at the company refused to be so exploited). It will hopefully reduce the circus like atmosphere and restore the event to something that industry actually interacts at.

    (On the flip side of the coin, the private parties are even more outlandish than the show floor. Make of that what you will.)
    • (On the flip side of the coin, the private parties are even more outlandish than the show floor. Make of that what you will.)
      Yes I predict an upsurge in booth-midgets on the convention hall floor and dwarf tossing during the private parties.
  • People do not dress this way in normal life, not even in Los Angeles.

    They do in Las Vegas. Just FYI.

    (No, I'm not being paid a retainer by the Vegas tourist board. And no, I'm not talking about people paid to dress that way in casinos--I'm talking about the girls dressed in skimpy near-transparent outfits you see heading from club to club.)

  • It's a private function, so they can of course, but sexuality has become such a common advertising practice (sick) that it seems unusual that this has been done. What's next, the Dallas cheerleaders having to wear sweatpants and full shirts to football games?
  • Farewell booth babes...

    ...hello entertainment [roboppy.net] and gaming [gamesblog.it] costumes instead!*

    *Stormtrooper outfits not permitted on account of "been there done that".

  • The photos are here (Score:5, Informative)

    by kill-1 (36256) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:10AM (#14558317)
    For everyone complaining about the lack of pics, you find them here [e3girls.com].

    3840 entries... That's what I call comprehensive media coverage.

  • these folks aren't in Japan. If they think the booth babes at this convention are bad you should see what the babes wear at the Tokyo Auto Salon [mainichi-msn.co.jp] or the Tokyo Motor Show [mainichi-msn.co.jp] and most certainly the Queens [mainichi-msn.co.jp] of Rally Japan.

    The censors in this country would assplode if they had to deal with those women.

  • A while ago I went to my first trade event as a potential buyer and for the most part the show was professional and well run. The stands were tidy and the people running them helpful and polite. There is, however, one stand that has really stuck in my mind and that was the one with the "booth babe". Maybe I'm naive but I didn't expect it at all as this was a professional event. My first response was shock my first thought was "I wouldn't deal with them if you paid me". After talking to the other suppliers I

  • Just Get Around It (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blueZhift (652272) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:22AM (#14558469) Homepage Journal
    I'm sure the more creative types will find a way around the booth babe restrictions. There are plenty of ways to be sexy without showing a lot of skin or behaving in obviously lewd manners. But if E3 is hoping to somehow clean up the image of the games industry by "cleaning" up the trade show, forget it! As long as violent games like the GTA series and others grab the spotlight, what happens at the trade show really doesn't matter. And it certainly doesn't matter how people are dressed. I mean really, if the adult film industry held high class swanky industry events where everyone was impeccably dressed and behaved with the highest manners, would that gain adult films any more respect than they get now? I doubt it. Window dressing is nice, but ultimately it's the product that matters the most.
  • by Jeff85 (710722) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:28AM (#14558547) Homepage
    "There are some companies that seem more susceptible to this kind of technique than others. It's difficult to imagine, say, EA or Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo bothering with this nonsense."

    It would appear at least Microsoft is no stranger to booth babes. A quick glance at e3girls.com easily reveals one of many pages of Microsoft using so-called "booth babes" to promote products.
    http://www.e3girls.com/display.cfm?startrow=1909&p agenum=213&type=full&query=full [e3girls.com]

    What? I was only visiting that site for uh... proof to refute the summary's claim... yeah...
  • by wedgewu (701989) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:32AM (#14558605) Homepage
    I've had about 20 people link me about the new booth babe regulations, but no one seems to be talking about the other changes that have happened to E3 this year. To me, it doesn't seem like this is some arbitrary regulation that they just happened to start, but rather just a part of an overall restructuring of the event. For example, one of the other rules that I know which has changed is that retail folks can no longer get in just by being your regular Joe working at a game store. They are only distributing a certain number of passes for those involved in retail companies, and the upper management in said companies gets to choose whom they would like to attend. This will hopefully limit the number of gawkers and people who have a very loose connection to the industry, and keep the place less crowded. There are probably other changed rules, how come we never hear about them? Oh, because... sex sells. ;-) Or the lack of it, in this case.
  • by phorm (591458) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:48AM (#14558820) Homepage Journal
    Given the turn in many of the games I've seen lately to produce "larger" more realistic (visually if not dimenensionally) boobies, I'd say that booth babes are rather representative in ways of the games being advertised.

    For that very reason, FFX-2 sits uncompleted on my shelves to this day...
    • Given the turn in many of the games I've seen lately to produce "larger" more realistic (visually if not dimenensionally) boobies, I'd say that booth babes are rather representative in ways of the games being advertised.

      "Realistic physics in games will never catch on. Lara Croft would keep falling over forwards." - Stephen Turner

  • Who did... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tom (822) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:54AM (#14558898) Homepage Journal
    ...put a stick up that guy's ass? I've locked at the article, I've locked a a few pages of booth babes pictures - and I wonder if "risque outfit" has the same definition in american dictionaries as in mine.

    All of these girls are fully and appropriately dressed. Aside from the fact that they have logos all over and some of them are wearing obvious custumes, the only reason any of them would be looked at even twice if they were to, say, go shopping in the center of my city tomorrow was because it doesn't fit to the damn cold.

    I've seen much more revealing outfits at pretty much every party and not few during normal summer shopping.
    • Yeah I agree, this stuff is pretty tame. I helped with the rigging off several erotica conventions in europe and this guy would have a heart attack if he saw what went on there.

      Then again it is hard to imagine an area of public sales where a pretty girl won't do the trick. Wether it is the stewardes or the receptionist a pretty face works better.

      As for it being sexist. Advertising aimed at women either uses the most perfect male or a mental retard. "Normal" men need not apply to sell products to women.

      He

  • Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 1WingedAngel (575467) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @12:12PM (#14559143) Homepage
    It's difficult to imagine, say, EA or Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo bothering with this nonsense."

    You mean like when Microsoft brought in the Laker Girls? Or when Sony got Denise Harris to dress up as that half-nekkid elf chick? Please.
  • Longer lines (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mackman (19286) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @01:05PM (#14559892)
    Booth babes had the wonderful effect of attracting lines of single guys wanting a photo or autograph. That means shorter lines for the game and hardware demos the rest of us want to see. Without booth babes, everyone will look at the games, which ruins it for the rest of us.
    • by meringuoid (568297) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:04AM (#14558237)
      ... skimpy costumes worn by booth chix0rz should only be permitted if they're replicas of those worn by characters in the game, movie or anime in question.

      I've nothing against it, as long as it's geekily appropriate :)

        • by d3ac0n (715594) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @12:36PM (#14559494)
          WARNING! Above link is NOT WORK SAFE!

          I really wish people would think to add that before posting links. It doesn't affect me, I'm the admin. What am I gonna do, write myself up? But others may not be so lucky. Please be considerate when posting links, mark them as NWS or not!
    • by Matt Ownby (158633) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:04AM (#14558240) Homepage Journal
      Well, dada21,

      This will come as a shock to you, but I agree with Colin Campbell's take on the booth babes. I do think that they are silly.

      My problem with booth babes is that while hiding behind 'free expression', these companies are trying to push their moral standards upon me trying to tell me what I should be looking at while going to a game show. I don't associate games with scantily clad women at all and resent these companies trying to merge the two. I say, get rid of the booth babes and make a product that can stand on its own feet. If people want to see scantily clad women, they can go to places that specialize in that.
      • Hey, I agree with you that I don't care much for booth babes. I don't go to conventions so that I can get a sneak peak of something along with 100,000 other people. The market already provides for guys like us -- it is called alpha testing, private screening and buyer tours.

        When it comes to the industries that I am in, I expect my sales people to give me a preview of items before the masses get to see them. I don't go to industry conventions, and I buy first from the sales people who give me dibs on seeing a new product. Girlies in bikinis do nothing for me (if you want nudity, just go to European beaches).

        Yet my problem with Campbell is his desire to enforce morality by LAW. If a private convention center said "we don't allow bikinis in our center" I have no problem with it. I have a problem with giving someone the right to use force against another. Voluntary cooperation is fine, force by mandate of the law is not.
      • Ah, so you're OK with pushing YOUR moral standards on others then?

        Hypocrite.

        Many people do consider such things "part of the event."

      • by jovetoo (629494) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:29AM (#14558569) Journal
        Then express your opinion in a suitable manner. Don't buy their products.

        Forbidding something has never made it go away. If the marketing guys think near-naked women makes things sell, then they will find a way to use near-naked women. Video, pictures, sexy voices, whatever,... you can't forbid everything. If necessary they'll put a booth babe in the game and have a "game-character" show up. Then what?

        However, if they notice that too many people find their ways undignified and take their shopping and attention elsewhere, the booth babes will magically disappear.

      • by TopShelf (92521) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:36AM (#14558656) Homepage Journal
        "My problem with booth babes is that while hiding behind 'free expression', these companies are trying to push their moral standards upon me trying to tell me what I should be looking at while going to a game show."

        Thanks for that - I needed a good laugh this morning. By that definition, anything anyone does in a public space is "pushing their moral standards" on everyone else in the area. Settle down, already! If you think you're going to turn into a pillar of salt for looking at a booth babe, just don't look!
      • by rholliday (754515) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:38AM (#14558684) Homepage Journal
        My problem with booth babes is that while hiding behind 'free expression', these companies are trying to push their moral standards upon me trying to tell me what I should be looking at while going to a game show.

        Oddly enough, that sounds like exactly the opposite of what's happening. "Moral" standards are being forced upon the companies who make up this game show.

        I don't associate games with scantily clad women at all and resent these companies trying to merge the two.

        I don't associate cars with scantily clad women. I don't associate football with scantily clad women. I don't associate beer with scantily clad women. It's advertising. Most companies do associate the male demographic with scantily clad women.

        I say, get rid of the booth babes and make a product that can stand on its own feet.

        I can agree with half of that.

        If people want to see scantily clad women, they can go to places that specialize in that.

        Yes, if all you wanted was to see scantily clad women, you could go to a strip club or some such establishment. What's next? If you want beer, don't go to a game, go to a bar? I don't want to sound like I'm making a slippery slope argument, but saying that because some people don't think two items have a strong and appropriate bond they should not be used jointly is kind of ridiculous.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:14AM (#14558367)
      Is there no social position you don't color through the lens of your pet theory on "anacro-capitalism"? That organizers and many participants find explicit sexual behavior at a public trade convention distracting and unrelated to business should be enough. The issue of a woman's right to strip and prostitute herself is actually "OFFTOPIC" and not "INSIGHTFUL". Please go away.
    • For the rest of his article, I'll give you a secret about E3: the real industry insiders don't care anymore. E3 is a consumer show now, no matter how much they try to say it isn't. The industry wants schmucks to go there, gawk at the hot scantily-clad babes, and crow about the next big game. E3 years ago was a blast when it was real insider scoops and communications with industry heavyweights. Now it is just another festival to get drunk, get laid, and then go home and tell everyone about the great new gadg
    • by LordPhantom (763327) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:20AM (#14558434)
      Wait... get laid? I've not been to E3, but if the normal crowd who discusses it is any measure of the people there.... shudder. Also, it's not like there are hot men there to attract geek girls (assuming that that WOULD do such a thing), so enlighten me on exactly why you think E3 is the same nirvanna of pleasure persuits that say a real estate convention is?

      On second thought, I'd rather you didn't. shudder again
    • There's nothing inherently unethical about booth babes. It's their chosen profession and they're being paid for their looks and their "marketting skills", ie. bringing the customers to the stand. It takes a lot of effort to stay looking that way, and courage to do it.

      Where is might be said to be on shakey ground is if both sexes aren't fairly represented, because then the do-gooders start talking about "objectifying women". Bring on the booth hunks, too ... I'm sure it won't be just the girls who check o
    • by bcattwoo (737354) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @11:53AM (#14558880)
      I looked at several different news sources and I didn't see anywhere where it said that the convention center was making the rules, but rather the organizers of the convention, the Enterntainment Software Association, made the new rules. Look like the free market spoke afterall.
    • If a private convention center wants to regulate clothing, they can. A government-run convention center (subsidized by taxpayers usually) should stick with the law that controls their powers.

      It's not the convention center that's regulating the clothing, it's the (private) company that puts together E3. They're saying that if you want to be a part of their convention, you need to follow a set of rules, of which this is one, so it seems entirely appropriate that they have that power. The fact that they ma

    • -1 OFFTOPIC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 (410832) on Wednesday January 25 2006, @12:04PM (#14559035) Journal
      "Government loves to try to control morality."

      No government intervention involved or called for. RTFA.

      You have your own blog in which you can bemoan government as much and as often as you want. This isn't it. Fight the power somewhere else please.