

Booth Babes Don't Work - mcenedella
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/13/booth-babes-dont-convert/

======
tanon500
They don't convert - but they do make the conference and the conversions
possible. Am I the only one who enjoys being in the company of attractive
people? I doubt a convention like CES (which I attended, and performed real
business at) would be nearly as popular if it weren't so damned entertaining;
it's popularity that ensures the audience you actually need to meet is there.

And though I thoroughly separate ambitions/intelligence/drive from appearance
when I'm hiring (if you can help me make money you're in), I'm inclined to use
a throwaway account so I don't get publicly chastised for PCness.

~~~
na85
>They don't convert - but they do make the conference and the conversions
possible.

This sentence is an oxymoron. They have a negative effect on conversions, but
they have a positive effect on conversions.

Tell us more, Slick. The article demonstrates quite conclusively that they
have a negative impact on his business' lead generation, period.

~~~
tanon500
The experiment simply lacks controls - remove the booth babes from the
conference all together (from all your competitors booths), and show me
increased conversions relative to a typical booth babe presence.

Why do you consider this a conclusive demonstration?

Also, since I'd like to respond to it appropriately, can you expand on what
you're trying to make me think about myself by calling me "Slick" \- is that
an insult?

~~~
mcherm
If the hypothesis is "there will be more conversions if no one at the
conference uses booth babes" then this was not a sufficient experiment.

But if the hypothesis was "there will be more conversions if MY company
refrains from using booth babes" then this was a useful ("conclusive" is
probably too strong for a single data point) experiment.

------
mcenedella
blueskin_ is wrong. As a middle name, I named my 1-year-old after Countess Ada
of Lovelace in order to encourage her to view computer science as a positive,
welcoming field.

Try explaining to a 15-year-old or 21-year-old woman why the presence of booth
babes shouldn't impact their choice of a career. In an industry with an
overwhelmingly male population, with a (deserved) reputation for cultural
quirks that tend to follow those of adolescent males, and few widely
acknowledged and celebrated female successes, the contextual message of booth
babes is pretty clear. And that message, based on the evidence, is: your
gender is not welcomed here.

I know you believe that your private pleasures have no public impact -- you
enjoy booth babes, so what's the problem?

I'd say the problem is that my goals are different from yours.

I don't think a professional event should appeal to the sexuality of either
gender, and should support the professional development of both.

I don't think your private, personal enjoyments have all that much relevance
to the success of the industry as a whole.

I don't think waving off the high turn-off value of this marketing mechanism
is warranted on the facts.

And I don't think, in an industry that prides itself on being rational,
scientific, and logical, that booth babes reflect well on the marketing
choices or expenditures of our industry's leaders.

With our different goals, we will come to different conclusions. And, as a
value judgment for what our industry is and what it ought to be, I think your
goals are wrong.

------
blueskin_
How about people do what they want and leave other people alone? I know it's a
strange concept, but I think it might catch on.

If you don't like them, don't hire them. If you do, go ahead.

Oh, and the article has all the experimental rigor of a homeopath's (i.e.
magic water con artist's) magic 'proof'. No controls, no adjustment for other
variables, only a single data point. I'm also inclined to guess that yes, they
could be a negative for a less well known company/brand/product with a small
presence, but not so for a bigger one. Finally, it's about the entertainment
factor - fewer people will go overall if there's less interesting things
there.

~~~
mcherm
> Oh, and the article has all the experimental rigor of a homeopath's (i.e.
> magic water con artist's) magic 'proof'. No controls, no adjustment for
> other variables, only a single data point.

I disagree. It is a single data point done with a control (and some
speculation that is NOT a valid scientific experiment). This article has
infinitely more actual data than any other study on the matter that I've ever
seen. A bigger and better experiment would be great (do you feel like funding
one?) but even this much is nice to have.

