Good Riddance To Booth Babes 210
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."
I fully applaud (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I fully applaud (Score:2)
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174808&
Re:I fully applaud (Score:3, Insightful)
That was plenty of pics for me
Re:I fully applaud (Score:3, Informative)
Boo! (Score:3, Insightful)
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"?
Re:Boo! (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:Boo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Boo! (Score:2)
Have cute girls in front of your display == get better chance of your display being seen in the E3 coverage.
E3 is all about promotion, after all.
Re:Boo! (Score:2)
If you're a mediocre product that can't get media coverage, I guess you should use anything you can to get attention. But again I'd argue, maybe you're better off making your product better or more marketable. Or maybe E3 is just not the right convention for you (save tim
Re:Boo! (Score:2)
90% of marketing is branding. That's why Nike pays Tiger Woods a fortune to wear their dorky hats. Remining people (and in particular, potential investors) that you exist and are doing well enough to blow money on advertising, endorsements, and trade show booths will ul
Re:Boo! (Score:2)
Not that new of a decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not that new of a decision (Score:2)
Its not even a open to the public show, its mostly private for media and people in the industry. (or has that changed too?)"
It's wink-nudge "private", they'll let in gamestop cashiers and retail servicepeople IIRC.
Microsoft can dance! (Score:2)
Developers, developers, developers.... ;)
Re:Microsoft can dance! (Score:2)
I'm sorry... (Score:2)
That ain't right.
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:2)
It's difficult to imagine, say, Sony... (Score:5, Funny)
What? Too far?
Re:It's difficult to imagine, say, Sony... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's difficult to imagine, say, Sony... (Score:2)
What? Too far?
Not too far, just too soon. That version of Sony DRM will be coming out with Blue Ray. ;)
Re:It's difficult to imagine, say, Sony... (Score:2)
Nintendo also uses employees, but I'm not sure about MS or EA.
Oh well (Score:3, Funny)
This just means more booth babes for other events.
I see this as a good thing.
More important is the press day... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:More important is the press day... (Score:2)
Standards of decency (Score:2)
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.)
Re:Standards of decency (Score:2)
Umm... those are their "working clothes." A uniform of sorts.
Let's just say it's not the casinos paying them to dress that way.
Re:Standards of decency (Score:2)
It' very simple to me. You don't like the booth babes? Don't go to the conference. You don't want your kids to see the booth babes? Don't let them go to the conference.
(sigh)
Just more unwelcome intrusion into my personal life.
Re:Standards of decency (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe if you're Carrie Bradshaw. Most New Yorkers in the real world, happily, have better taste than that.
Re:Standards of decency (Score:2)
Bah. It's part of society. (Score:2)
The answer is clear... (Score:2)
*Stormtrooper outfits not permitted on account of "been there done that".
The photos are here (Score:5, Informative)
3840 entries... That's what I call comprehensive media coverage.
Re:The photos are here (Score:2)
No. Adding a "hot or not"-style rating system and a "top 100" link would be comprehensive. The current site is just a way to trick young Slashdotters into viewing banner and Google ads on 400 consecutive pages.
Good thing. . . (Score:2)
The censors in this country would assplode if they had to deal with those women.
Re:Good thing. . . (Score:2)
Re:Good thing. . . (Score:2)
Did you visit those sites you linked? I was expecting something obscene, or at least bikini swimwear level exposure or something.
The people in all these photos (except 2 or 3), however, are fully clothed... I don't get it?
Re:Good thing. . . (Score:2)
As far as the auot show ones, the previous years booth babes had skimpier outfits (on the whole) but I couldn't find a link for them. The usual rule for the auto show is short skirt, form fitting, low-cut top and either boots or heels.
Why do they do it? (Score:2)
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
companies, not people (Score:2)
This could also have read, "there are some PEOPLE that seem more susceptible to this kind of technique"...
Me being one of those people. Ahem.
Just Get Around It (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry but... (Score:2)
Re:Sorry but... (Score:2)
You mean you got into computers in order to attract women?!? What the hell were you thinking? One needs to get away from computers to get women.
Most of those booth babes don't care one bit about the geeky gamer that takes a picture with them. They really don't. And geeky gamers know that (at l
(Strongbad Voice) (Score:2, Funny)
Come back booth bunny's sister!
Everybody uses booth babes (Score:3, Informative)
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&
What? I was only visiting that site for uh... proof to refute the summary's claim... yeah...
GUComics take on the issue (Score:2)
What about the other new regulations? (Score:4, Insightful)
not like microsoft would.. (Score:2)
http://www.e3girls.com/subview.cfm?photoid=2071&t
Booth Babes don't work (Score:2)
Companies that repeatedly use this tactic eventually get weeded out by Adam Smith's invisible hand.
--Mike--
The games themselves (Score:3, Insightful)
For that very reason, FFX-2 sits uncompleted on my shelves to this day...
Realistic physics in games will never catch on (Score:3, Funny)
"Realistic physics in games will never catch on. Lara Croft would keep falling over forwards." - Stephen Turner
Who did... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I dunno, man (Score:2)
<shudder>
Ah, a kindred spirit (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Question to Men (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Brokeback E3 (Score:2)
Noooooooo!I guess I won't be attending any more expos. The only thing that'll make me stop (or slow down) at a booth is a booth babe or they have something really cool.
Colin Campbell has an editorial at Next Generation in which he applauds the decision to fine risque outfits worn by the traditional 'booth babes'.
Is Colin gay? Would he prefer Booth Stud Muffins?
Colin Campbell (Score:2)
Stan: "Gay"
Cartman: "Gay"
Kenny: "Mphy"
Kyle: "Liberace gay"
Rather selective, aren't we (Score:2)
Why do you also not have a problem with celebrities being used to draw people to the booths? Some B-list actor is no more relevant to the products being sold than some chick in hot pants is. They're placed there for only one reason, to make people gawk and hopefully notice the products being pitched. While you're at it, how about regulating the rampant appearance of celebrities in public; the world would truly be a better
Longer lines (Score:3, Insightful)
Normal life (Score:2)
Boy, you really do need to get out more! Here in Norway, girls dress like this any summer day.
The least they could have done... (Score:2)
Where are we?! (Score:2, Insightful)
If somebody is willing to pay a beautiful woman to wear a skimpy outfit, and she is willing, then hey so be it! As for those that do not like it, do not look at them or go to these shows! Remember freedom of choice applies to you as well!
I think they should be regulated... (Score:4, Funny)
I've nothing against it, as long as it's geekily appropriate :)
Re:how can I make an informed opinion?!! (Score:4, Informative)
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!
Re:how can I make an informed opinion?!! (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, I agree as a rule with the concept of labelling NSFW links, but this seems like a fairly slender thread on which to hang your response.
I think your boss was giving you a come-on... (Score:3, Interesting)
well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:2)
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:2, Insightful)
And how is banning them no imposing your moral standards on people?
Just because you don'y think it's fitting, doesn't mean to say that everyone else agrees with that.
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:3, Insightful)
Hypocrite.
Many people do consider such things "part of the event."
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:2)
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:5, Funny)
On second thought, I'd rather you didn't. shudder again
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2)
There are high ranking men in a multi billion dollar industry.
I don't know much about women, but I know that to them, rich men = hot men.
Of course, the boothbabes are also after these same persons, therefore I'll assume that this coup against the hot-babe order of things is orchestrated by geek girls who want to get the rich men without the competition of babes in skimpy outfits : )
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2, Insightful)
Slight correction (Score:2)
Almost. People love to try to control morality. They try to use government as the tool of their control.
Don't lay all your problems on the "government". That just disguises the problem and confuses the solution.
Balance the booth babes with booth hunks (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2)
That's not what this is about though.
This isn't about whether people can do all the things you describe, but where they do those things.
I agree that people should have the right to do what they like with their bodies, wear what they like, etc... But I also think that sc
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:-1 OFFTOPIC (Score:2)
Maybe Colin Campbell is Gay?? (Score:2)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2)
...Expression can not be controlled per the 1st amendment.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sorry, but the first amendment only covers those things that it explicitly states: Religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and communication to the government.
Re:Don't quit your day job... (Score:2)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2)
Re:Conventions should move to private property (Score:2)
If you actually read TFA, you'll find that it's not the goverment doing this - it's E3 itse
Re:Worst. Link. Ever. (Score:2)