Booth Babes Don't Work(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Booth Babes Don't Work
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/13/booth-babes-dont-convert/
3 comments
>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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
No need to be snarky. OP stated their opinion in a well thought out, polite way. If you disagree or think OP is an idiot, maybe it's best if you just keep that to yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.