Spencer Chen is for the moment one of my fav marketers. Not because he’s exceedingly sympathetic or amazing, but because he actually did an experiment where he tested the draw of booth babes.
Guess why he’s my fav? Because he’s proven – to some extent – that booth babes don’t work.
I like it for the simple reason that I don’t like the exploitation of women as sales objects in trade shows. And now, someone has shown that this might not be the best way to draw business either. Money talks, isn’t that what people say when they want to defend sexism in the games and other industries? Well then. Allow money to talk.
(This, by the way, is not limited to trade shows. Have you seen the numbers from the box office that Vocativ put together? The movies that pass the Bechdel test actually did better than the ones that didn’t. Money talks.)
This also connects to Tom Abernathy’s talk at Gotland Game Conference 2013, in which he quite clearly states that diversity is attractive to the playing and paying audience. I’ve included the talk here, but I also want to point out the core statements of his lecture.
There are three good reasons why diversity is good for games:
1. Moral – it’s the right thing to do. Everybody has the same right to see characters who look like them. It doesn’t occur to the white male that they’ve always had dudes to identify with. In a business context the moral argument is the least convincing.
2. Creative – It opens up possibilities for complexity, depth and selling more games. There are abundant examples of this. Tom uses Homeland, Game of Thrones and Luthor as well as Deception to point out that there are strong women. Skyfall is also used as an example – homosexual villain who interacts with Bond. He’s okay with bicurious. Multiracial Moneypenney, M, is female (Dench). Cretive and box office success of these examples is not a coincidence. Diversity sells.
3. Business – there is hard data to support that when you add more gender and ethnic diversity to games they sell more.
This of course ties into the booth babe and money discussion, because booth babes do not only discourage women from going up to a booth, but also as it would seem, men. Maybe the connection between diversity in games and booth babes isn’t clear, but there is a connection. In both these instances women are used as sexualised objects to sell a product. Anyway, that’s not really what this post is about, even though it is. But only peripherally. Aaaanyway…
So, what were the reasons that putting attractive women in the booths failed? I’ll quote Chen himself (from article on Techcrunch).
1. Booth babes are intimidating. Instead of drawing people in, booth babes actually give guys who attend tech conferences some anxiety and pause for engaging in conversation. Even booth babes themselves have said this. I think it’s just human nature for guys to be a little nervous around hot girls. The ones that had no trouble engaging our booth babes were always the overconfident weirdos.
2. Booth babes are lazy. These are the same gals that get hired to do restaurant shows, car shows, or events at the local hot spot. They are used to not doing much except showing up to make their fee for the day. At tech shows it’s quite a bit different where the audience is looking to learn and educate themselves on new offerings.
I mean, you don’t go to an SAP event to “turn up.” On more than one occasion I had to remind my booth babes to get out of the booth and bring people for us to talk to. I had no such trouble with my other team. They were more than happy to engage in small talk outside the booth, establish rapport, and make great local restaurant recommendations to our prospects before introducing them to one of our reps.
3. Business and product execs don’t talk to booth babes. If you’re a legit executive at a trade show, you already have an agenda to get some shit done. Afterall, that’s why we spend the money that we do to exhibit at these events…everyone that we would love to talk to is there. If you’re an exec, you’re looking for your peer at the booth and are not bothering with the booth babes.
Many times I observed that while my team was busy in demos with other prospects, the booth babes were unable to hold the interest of these execs for the extra five minutes that I needed to get a person from our team to engage. I had no such trouble with the other ladies since I had requested that specific soft skill.
4. Low-quality leads. Back to point No. 1, the ones that the booth babes had no trouble attracting were often low-level, overconfident IT nubs — the guys that were already always first at the hosted bars and whose highlight for the quarter was being authorized to travel for the event. They had neither the authority nor the budget that made them ideal prospects for our sales teams. All these guys do is lower your conversion from lead to opp and lower your ROI on the show.
So. Money talks eh? If it did, we’d see a change happening. Personally, I think sexism talks. Because it is convenient. Because it is a “truth”. Because it is more comfortable and easier. Because wow – power is exhilarating, even if it is the power over other human beings.
Links:
Boing Boing
2014-01-17 at 13:08
“Maybe the connection between diversity in games and booth babes isn’t clear, but there is a connection.” Indeed. I think it’s too lazy to think of the booth babes as just harmless marketing devices since they are in fact intensifying the issues surrounding women in the industry (which is what you’re right in implying here). But it’s also too premature, I believe, to say that ‘Honey Money’ doesn’t work (which is not what you or Chen is saying, really). There are still reasons why our world is so preoccupied with erotic capital and reasons why people (women and men) must rely on beauty (and attentiveness) to further them in the World.
The booth babes are individuals with their own loves, fears, hopes and dreams. A good marketing director and a decent personnel director should know about the fears of ‘patriarchal bargaining’; in this case the willingness of a woman to accept a gender role that could disadvantage her in order to gain whatever power she can from the system. Even if it is a manipulation of the system to their own short term individual advantage, it leaves the system very much intact and nothing changes. They should also know by now that the gaming medium often suffers from being so immature (which includes its public and users). Sexualized ideals of a ‘girl gamer’ on a convention could easily result in the sort of sexualized abuse you hear about women getting on Xbox live and other media.
A good marketing director could ask: Do our staff know anything useful beyond what is displayed on the floor (through demo videos or gameplay)? If not, they are a big waste. IS our staff furthering our interests? Are they treated with respect or have we degraded them to merely tight tops and high heels? (And when the drooling IT-technician propose that they could throw in a few topless male models on the floor as well, so that they could claim that the sexism wasn’t specific to one gender, the CEO would probably drop the whole idea of having something called ‘booth babes’ on the floor altogether).
2014-01-17 at 18:27
Well, I think that the gain from dropping the “honey money” as you put it, is probably much bigger than to keep it. I’m pretty sure there are people out there who find booth babes very attractive and efficient as sales tools. And I also agree with you in your analysis of women using the patriarchy to their advantage.
2014-01-17 at 22:50
Some good points here and thanks for the link to the experiment – it definitely shows interesting results. Should not really come as a surprise though as most gamers i have encountered are, at least somewhat, socially awkward, so booth babes being intimidating i can see for sure. Having worked with some of them, i can tell first hand that not all of them a very knowledgeable on the products they are supposed to represent. Having said that, in the last 2 years i worked with women from PR companies who, while not strictly being booth babes, were above average in looks and certainly dressed “sexy” – and they knew everything about the game or product they worked for.
I also agree that diversity with games is important, but i have 2 questions for that.
Firstly, do you think that every game would benefit (financially) from having more diversion? I am thinking of games like FIFA or even Call of Duty for example.
Secondly, do you think we absolutely have to have more diversity in every game, or do you think it is enough to create a bigger variety of games, including games with diverse characters?
With the second question, i guess i am driving to a point where i feel that creative freedom, regardless of content, is more important than quotas or censorship. So your stance on that would be interesting.
2014-01-17 at 23:16
The answer to your first question is “no”. I don’t believe that every game would benefit from more diversity. However I do believe that every genre would, meaning that sports games, first person shooters etc would probably not suffer if we added a greater amount of diversity to them as a whole. I wouldn’t mind a roller derby game, for instance, and that’s a sport dominated by women.
Secondly, I think I answered that with the answer to the first question. What I have always asked for is greater diversity. I don’t want to remove any one gaming experience, simply because different people can enjoy different games for different reasons. I think that the diversity displayed in today’s games fail to cater to very many of these wished for experiences, and if they do prove to be enjoyable by a diverse audience, it’s more or less by accident, at least where content is concerned. As soon as that discussion is raised, however, someone always shouts about censorship (note that I’m not talking about your comment here, but in all fairness you did bring it up, even if it wasn’t to shout).
I also think it is important that we are allowed to discuss the contents of games without being attacked when doing it. I’ve been called more names than I care to think about, and that simply because I’ve been audacious enough to suggest that women have stories too, and those stories are sadly lacking in games.
Yes, I am critical of games and the gaming culture. I’ll tell you why. I love playing games. I love constructing game mechanics and systems. I love telling stories. I want games to become better, and it is my honest opinion that they will become better if we open them up to a wider audience.
2014-01-19 at 01:02
Thanks Åsa, for a great experiment to refer to when talking to people about these things.
Personally I find booth babes to be an unattractive concept, no matter if they’re good looking or not.
@Andreas: Censorship is removing something. Adding diversity, no matter the form, can never be censorship. 😉
2014-01-19 at 01:14
For example, Call of Duty was brought up. There are plenty of female soldiers, so why not in CoD? Being a soldier myself, I’d definately appreciate there being the ocassional female colleague by my side when I fight. And had I been a woman I am sure I would have appreciated the option of playing as a female. The thought has crossed my mind while I’m playing CoD co-op with my 11 y o bonus daughter. 😉
When it comes to FIFA, unfortunately the world of football is as it is in media today. Women’s football will never get as much coverage in Sweden for example, no matter if they win the World Cup while the men’s team doesn’t even make it to the WC. And I think that’s what is mirrored in games. However, why not release a patch for FIFA Women? It would be a huge step in the right direction and shouldn’t be too hard or costly to do, when you already have the finished game (correct me if I’m wrong on the technicalities, Åsa).
2014-01-19 at 11:34
Thanks for your reply Åsa. I won’t cry for censorship necessarily, but i used the word to make a clear distinction. I think we are aligned on what we thing is best for the industry going forward – a broader range of games that includes many games with more diversity.
I totally agree that discussion should always be allowed, and nobody ever should be attacked for their opinion. But, as you probably know, when it comes to games a lot of people get quite emotional – and not always in a positive way. A CoD designer receiving death threats after balancing a weapon in game is an example of that. Many gamers simply feel entitled when it comes to “their” franchise.
Creating more games to an ever increasing demographic can never be a bad thing. To me personally creative freedom is just paramount – creatives should always be allowed to realize their vision.
Finn: your question about CoD (having been a solider myself and enjoy FPS games). For the setting and the type of game CoD is: would it really make CoD any better if there was a choice of female character? i honestly doubt it, but i might be wrong.
I thought about the same thing as you for FIFA – a woman’s football patch. But the simple truth here is (same with adding a female character to CoD) – does the benefit outweigh the cost?
Working in development, i can tell you it’s not just “adding” something. There is voice over, animation, character art and many more aspects involved. If the end benefit does not outweigh that cost, not many developers/publishers will go for it. That is why i listed those 2 games in particular as examples. We should not “dictate” to developers what to include, since it’s not our money on the line 🙂 But we should influence developers to create new games, from the ground up, with diversity in mind.
2014-01-19 at 15:09
Well. I’m sure we use the same words, but I’m not sure we mean the same things by them.
Creative freedom is for me the opportunity not only to go on the way that we have been doing, but to actually allow creative freedom – and that means having female protagonists etc. However, the publishers happen to ”dictate”, as you say, quite a lot when it comes to the creative vision. There is only one public example available that I know of, the discussions within Activision as reported byLeigh Alexander on Gamasutra. There have been other discussions which I’ve been involved in but that I can’t relate here due to confidentiality agreements. These discussions have served to limit the creative freedom of developers precisely in the area of female protagonists, attire etc, and to encourage the same sexism that we often see in games, usually based on nonexistent or very flimsy arguments.
I can’t be sure of course, but I get the feeling that the creative freedom invoked is the license to continue as previously without being questioned. What I’m talking about is something quite different.
2014-01-21 at 02:24
Andreas, for a female gamer it would most likely be more immersive if they were given the option of playing as a female character.
For me, although everyone looks a lot alike when geared up, it does feel a lot more “flat” when I don’t hear the ocassional female voice shouting beside me. In real life I’m used to hearing a mix of male and female voices around me, and when that doesn’t happen in the game I’m reminded that it’s not real. Ie it ruins immersion for me. And that makes for a better game.
But I guess we’re different in that sense. In short, diversity in games such as Call of Duty, makes for more realism in my opinion.
2014-01-21 at 02:26
The sentence “And that makes for a better game” was supposed to come last in the post. 🙁
2014-01-30 at 19:18
@Finn: not sure how much realistic combat experience you have, but, as someone who has been in the army, trust me: it’s mostly men (not saying that’s a good thing). So to feel immersed in a military shooter, it is more realistic to have male voices. Personally, as a designer and as ex-military, these games are not realistic. Immersion comes from the environment, the through-the-gun feeling, audio and the scripting of content. Games like this don’t have to be real (and they never really are), they just have to be believable.
@Åsa: That’s certainly one way of looking at it. But i feel it’s easy to blame the establishment or publishers in this case. The person who puts up the money always will have something to say. If a creative can’t bring up a valid enough argument for a female protagonist, then the creative lacks vision and clout, or simply is not convincing enough. On the other hand, kickstarter and other options are available to creatives – the publisher is no longer needed. Any creative these days can chose to go their own way. Found or join a studio that is more aligned with what they want to make. If those games are successful, i would be pretty sure publishers will also be more open to grant creative freedom. To me the studio/publisher relationship is not just one of money but also of trust. If a studio delivers what it contractually agreed to, a publisher can be very open to grant more creative freedom. I have seen that happen quite successfully in the past. You can’t honestly expect someone paying (often) millions and not wanting a say in what is being created.
2014-01-31 at 02:04
“Finn: not sure how much realistic combat experience you have, but, as someone who has been in the army, trust me: it’s mostly men (not saying that’s a good thing). So to feel immersed in a military shooter, it is more realistic to have male voices. Personally, as a designer and as ex-military, these games are not realistic. Immersion comes from the environment, the through-the-gun feeling, audio and the scripting of content. Games like this don’t have to be real (and they never really are), they just have to be believable.”
Yes, it’s *mostly* men, but it’s not *only* men, which is what is displayed in these games. If you read my post again, I’m not asking for only female voices. I’m not even asking for 50%. I asked for occasionally seeing women or hearing female voices. And that would become a part of the environment that you correctly pointed out as being the source of immersion. Sure the games are not realistic, but to use that as an excuse is just the same as saying “it’s a fantasy”. Even a fantasy, no matter how magical or fantastic, should be believable and immersive to connect with the players, or it falls flat. The through-the-gun feeling that you mention isn’t what brings realism in my opinion. If it was, it’d feel realistic when playing paintball and such as well, which is not the case. The reason for this is that we use all senses to orient ourselves in reality. The feeling of the weapon kicking against your shoulder, the sound of your own breath when running, the shockwave from the muzzle against the face and the smell of gunpowder. Now obviously video games are limited to what senses can be stimulated. In shooters they nowadays have come far in this. For example hearing your own breath, visual effects that try to simulate shockwaves and so on. But since fps gaming is limited to what you can see and hear, and completely leave out what you can feel, smell and taste (for example the taste of iron in your mouth when firing a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle) it’s hard to make them realistic. Also more realism is often not what the majority want, or the ARMA-series would be more successful than BF and CoD. But even if a game can’t be 100% realistic, it can still be made more immersive.
So basically, your last sentence displays my opinion pretty well. And for a game to be immersive it needs to be believable or the lack of believability becomes a barrier against immersion.
To sum it up, I don’t see how a development towards adding realistic female characters and voices in games would in any way take away from anything, more than it would gain in believability. And that’s the direction I’d like to see video games go.