The 'booth babes' of CES
venturebeat.com
venturebeat.com
Then: "The younger ones in previous years used to ask for my number a lot.”
The article is pretty much void of content, just a couple of booth babes giving personal (and contradictory) anecdotes.
I know that the irony there is that they are marketed and dressed in a manner to appeal to the male sexual mind, but I'd like to think we've evolved beyond that (chuckles heard in the audience).
"Tell me more about what you're doing/this product." seems like a good start.
- Tell me more about what you're doing.
- You know, just standing here half-naked, attracting penises to this booth.Actually, that's a creative embellishment you've contributed. The quotes from the models do not support your inference. They merely portray the actions of the men, not the preferences of the models.
The writer labels it a "pretty common complaint," but the sentence “And then you get the creepers who like to take photos without asking” could be equally taken to be backdoor bragging. Plenty of women describe encounters from strangers in order to brag about their attractiveness. (See the movie American Beauty, for example).
Plenty of women appreciate the attention of men. In fact, later on, one of the models says, "I love my techies."
Downvote me if you want - this is a throwaway - but if you ever want to understand women, you'll re-read my words until you understand them.
So the question is - why not hire male models to pitch wares? And the challenge is to be aware of the effect of beauty and to change our behavior.
I wonder the same. What are the 'legitimate' points of taking pictures of or with these women? So that you can offer photographic proof to your friends back home that you have indeed once been near a woman?
Then again, I don't understand the point of tourists taking pictures of national monuments, so maybe I'm just missing the core concept of pictures...
"Sex sells" is the "point", legitimate or not. For better or worse, "sex sells" seems to currently be accepted by society. Nobody really makes an excuse for it.
I'm wondering what excuse for taking pictures with them is, since presumably "so I can jack it later" is not a socially acceptable reason. That reason, while I suspect it is the actual reason, is left unstated so that both parties can pretend there is another reason.
"If CES attendees feel intimidated by a booth spokesperson, why is that spokesperson chosen to do the job? Why not let the models dress down, adopt girl-next door makeup, and proactively demo the products instead of standing around in heels waiting for the next photo opp?"
Science knows that sex sells. http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-04/sex-sells-what...
So yes, my guess is the booth babes help raise product awareness, product exposure, and desire for the product.
> During my show-floor travels, I confirmed my hypothesis that the so-called “booth babes” are worthy of so much more than objectification. But these women surprised me with some of their insights, namely that sexualizing them is bad for business.
> A nameless, hot object is something you want to look at. But to get to know the person and the product she represents, you have to see her as a person.
I don't get it. Are we dating?
A company hires a woman to put on a bikini and in a conference hall where everyone else is dressed casually, this woman walks around dressed to go swimming.
And yet, the woman doing this complains how she is being victimized by the evil men who objectify her during their 120 seconds with her.
Somehow the company shouldn't hire her to walk around in her bikini and the male attendees shouldn't objectify her and that their awkward behavior around her signifies much more than that she is dressed in a bikini in a conference hall where everyone else is dressed casual or in a suit and tie.
News flash: she is objectifying herself.
No, the author is just suggesting that to most effectively pitch the person/product they represent, reps need to be approachable. After all, isn't "build rapport" step one of sales? Now, whether the models are there to pitch anything in the first place is a different question.
And yet, the woman doing this complains how she is being victimized by the evil men who objectify her during their 120 seconds with her.
Doesn't read like that to me. The only one pushing any kind of agenda in the article is the author, who is not a booth babe.
You're right and I wish I had written it to represent that more accurately.
'Would she classify them as desperate nerds? She laughs a bit nervously. "I guess so."'
So we're getting the author's words coming back out of the models' mouths. This is of limited interest.
Here are a few things that I found interesting:
* Bikini modelling (perhaps obviously) pays the most. Numbers are in the $50-75/hour range.
* For non-bikini modelling, liquor gigs pay the most. About $35/hour. Non-liquor gigs are roughly $20-25/hour.
* A lot of girls do this full-time.
publicity != information. /thread
> their insights, namely that sexualizing them is bad for business.
Hmmm. Any chance their insights are .... wrong? What's my evidence? I dunno, models make $50-75/hour while the CEO of the company who hires them makes millions a year?
Actually, I suspect the author is putting her words into the models' mouths. Did the models really say they thought sexualization was bad for business? They said the men were shy and didn't approach them, but linking that to bad business practice requires several more conceptual leaps.
Just another woman-judges-women story.
Where's the story?