Good Riddance To Booth Babes

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."

Comments

I fully applaud

[archeopterix]

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?!?!?!?

Re:I fully applaud

[publicworker]

from TFA: Try tapping 'E3' into Google Image Search. Out of the first eight images, six are of models. That's. Just. Great.

That was plenty of pics for me ;)

Not that new of a decision

[F_Scentura]

The rules have always been in place, they only recently decided to start "enforcing" them.

It's difficult to imagine, say, Sony...

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

yeah, Sony would just have guys to rape you.

What? Too far?

More important is the press day...

[Godeke]

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.)

I think they should be regulated...

[meringuoid]

... 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 :)

well this will come as quite a shock to you

[Matt Ownby]

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.

Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you

[dada21]

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.

Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Ah, so you're OK with pushing YOUR moral standards on others then?

Hypocrite.

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

Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you

[jovetoo]

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.

Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you

[TopShelf]

"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!

Re:well this will come as quite a shock to you

[rholliday]

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.

Re:I'm sorry...

[Krach42]

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...

Re:Boo!

[AlterTick]

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!

The photos are here

[kill-1]

For everyone complaining about the lack of pics, you find them here.

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

Re:Conventions should move to private property

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Conventions should move to private property

[LordPhantom]

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

Just Get Around It

[blueZhift]

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.

What about the other new regulations?

[wedgewu]

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.

Re:Boo!

[MikeFM]

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:Conventions should move to private property

[bcattwoo]

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.

Re:Conventions should move to private property

[flooey]

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 may be using a publicly-owned shouldn't infringe on their ability to choose the rules by which exhibitors participate.

-1 OFFTOPIC

[Guppy06]

"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.

Re:how can I make an informed opinion?!!

[d3ac0n]

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!

Re:how can I make an informed opinion?!!

[Ray Radlein]

Wait a minute -- you clicked on a link promising relevant pictures for an article about inappropriately-attired women acting in sexually provocative ways, and were surprised to find results that were Not Safe for Work? What on earth did you expect to see when you clicked that link?

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...

[Thud457]

Yet strangely, valve nipples will give you fourteen pages of mostly-relevant images, with no spurious mammalian protuberances to be found.