RSA: Ban On Booth Babes Has Been No Big Deal (networkworld.com)

netbuzz quotes a report from Network World: In March 2015, RSA Conference organizers made news by contractually insisting that vendors pitch their security wares without the help of "booth babes," a first such ban for the technology industry. Next week's event will be third under the new rules. With the use of "booth babes" long a source of contention -- and some would say embarrassment -- implementation of the ban has gone smoothly, according to RSA. "Overall I would say this has been received well by our exhibitors," says Sandra Toms, vice president and curator of the conference. "Several have thanked us for having a policy." If you compare the policy's contract language in 2015 with the language now used by Toms, you'll notice how much it has evolved and how it has been accepted by various stake-holders. Here's an excerpt from the "short Q&A" between Paul McNamara, news editor for Network World, and Toms: Has there been any need to enforce the code or have all exhibitors complied? "Enforce" always makes it sound like armed guards have come into play and dragged someone off the show floor. We share these guidelines with our exhibitors and we're clear that this is a policy that is expected to be acknowledged and complied with. We take our attendee experience seriously and expect our exhibitors to do the same. If we receive a complaint about a particular exhibitor, we will send someone over to the booth and examine the situation. If the attire matches our dress code, then they can proceed and we can explain to the attendee why that form of dress is allowed. If they are clearly in violation, we will ask them to change. This policy is equally applied to both men and women -- from Sumo wrestlers to scantily clad models.

Comments

Geeks repellant!

[rockmuelle]

So, at the more hardcore geek conference (Supercomputing comes to mind), there has never really been an issue with booth babes for a simple reason: geeks are scared to talk to them. Every now and then a company will hire one, only to see a nice exclusion zone form around their booth. Sure, sales guys from other booths will stop by, but none of the intended audience will risk talking with an attractive female.

This doesn't sound like a ban on booth babes

[edtice1559]

A ban on booth babes would mean that the people in the booth are there because they have knowledge and information to offer rather than for their attractiveness. The summary makes it sound like the booth babes just wear more clothes, but they are still booth babes. Their primary purpose is to look nice and then refer people to those with actual knowledge. It's a sales tactic that seems to work but the push back against booth babes is that people want to be valued for their humanity rather than their sexuality. Of course this is somewhat of a case of being careful what you wish for. As somebody who has been said to "look like he knows what he's talking about" I can say that I wouldn't mind being valued as a sexual object but that's somewhat of a digression.

Re: Alternative to ban

[youngone]

The example I was thinking of is a former colleague of mine who was hired to be a designer, but was way too flaky and stupid to ever really make a go of it.

The fact that she was absolutely gorgeous meant that she was employed for a lot longer than she should have been by my boss, (a man who should have known better).

I saw her a couple of years ago, she's in her early forties now (I think) and did the smart thing when she was fired from designing. She worked as a booth babe for just long enough to catch a rich fellow at some event, marry him and have a child.

She is now happily divorced with no need to ever work again.

Logic fail

[s.petry]

If you would get fired for wearing certain attire at your job, a woman would similarly get fired for wearing similar attire. Companies would be sued out of existence if they did not have measurably similar standards for their dress code. Your claim is a complete fabrication.

There are plenty of women who want to model and make a very good living doing just that. In fact women make on average over 10 times more than men for modeling work. Face it: You wish to deny women the right to work in a job of their choosing and force them into STEM jobs. You are a misogynist who does not believe in a woman's liberty. Shame on you!