4 ms·

Oh, so many comments come to mind! I'll just write two: (i) BB's are not paid to "endure your company", they are there just to attract the average conference/t

by Jun8 16y ago

Oh, so many comments come to mind! I'll just write two: (i) BB's are not paid to "endure your company", they are there just to attract the average conference/trade show attendee who happens to be a 30+ year old male. Now, you may find this objectionable, but then why stop at BBs; you should then object to all advertising, which by default use the same strategy. You should object to Danica Patrick and other GoDaddy girls. You should not drink beers that use provocative women in their advertising (that would be very few). You should not use Old Spice (their sexist marketing campaign was touted as "brilliant" just yesterday on HN) or Axe because they use similar approaches. (ii) Think about it: Saying BB = stripper (as other people have written here) is the kind of generalization that you are objecting to. How is this different than the despicable notion that women attendees to these events somehow know less than male attendees? You are judging by the cover only. Have you actually talked to any of these girls? Edit: Downvoters, please try to tell me why you think I'm wrong. Do you think females are not used in other advertising in this fashion? Do you think all BBs are strippers? Do you find my language objectionable? THINK! Then downvote.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
michael_dorfman 16y ago
Regarding point (i) above: personally, I'm not terribly impressed by advertisers who attempt to sexualize things that are not inherently sexual in order to get my attention. Beer ads, Go Daddy and Evony banners are all equally skeevy in my book. Axe is a bit more understandable-- their marketing premise is that their fragrance will make you more attractive to women (which, while most likely false, is at least on the verge of plausibility). However, I really have to object when you lump the Old Spice Twitter/YouTube campaign in with that. The fact that the actor in the Old Spice commercial was buff and topless was only a minor factor in the overall scheme of things. With Go Daddy and Evony, if you remove the breasts, there's nothing much left. With Old Spice, there was still a whole lot of win. As for point (ii): it's been well over a decade since I've been to a trade show, but back in the day, there was no pretense that the "booth babes" had any knowledge of (or interest in) the product. They were there to be eye candy, pure and simple. Any other skills on their part was purely fortuitous. (For the record, I didn't downvote you, btw).
- starkfist 16y ago
  I dunno... If the actor wasn't buff and topless it wouldn't have been as good. If the actor was fat and topless it would have seemed obscene. If it was a busty woman in a tiny bikini top doing exactly the same thing, it would have seemed pretty sexist. Maybe those postmodern body politic semioticians actually do have valuable ideas to contribute to our digital world...
- Jun8 16y ago
  Well, maybe you think the guy's toplessness was a minor point because you're not in the target group, i.e. women. I forwarded that link to a few of my colleagues (was that a sexist thing to do?) and they absolutely swooned over the guy, so it was a major thing for them. The bottom line: for a lot of products, sex sells. The only question is how tactfully it is done.
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    Well, maybe you think the guy's toplessness was a minor point because you're not in the target group, i.e. women. I forwarded that link to a few of my colleagues (was that a sexist thing to do?) and they absolutely swooned over the guy, so it was a major thing for them. But that's exactly my point: even though the guy's physique did nothing for me, there was still plenty for me to love in the campaign. As opposed to the Evony banner ads, on the other hand, which offer absolutely nothing to anyone not impressed by cleavage. The bottom line: for a lot of products, sex sells. The only question is how tactfully it is done. And this relates to my other point: some products are more inherently sexual than others. The entire premise of the Old Spice product (not just the campaign) is based on making oneself more attractive to the opposite sex. This is different than, say, Cisco Routers, where there is no natural connection between the sex used to sell the product, and the product itself.

by Jun8 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Regarding point (i) above: personally, I'm not terribly impressed by advertisers who attempt to sexualize things that are not inherently sexual in order to get my attention. Beer ads, Go Daddy and Evony banners are all equally skeevy in my book. Axe is a bit more understandable-- their marketing premise is that their fragrance will make you more attractive to women (which, while most likely false, is at least on the verge of plausibility). However, I really have to object when you lump the Old Spice Twitter/YouTube campaign in with that. The fact that the actor in the Old Spice commercial was buff and topless was only a minor factor in the overall scheme of things. With Go Daddy and Evony, if you remove the breasts, there's nothing much left. With Old Spice, there was still a whole lot of win. As for point (ii): it's been well over a decade since I've been to a trade show, but back in the day, there was no pretense that the "booth babes" had any knowledge of (or interest in) the product. They were there to be eye candy, pure and simple. Any other skills on their part was purely fortuitous. (For the record, I didn't downvote you, btw).

starkfist 16y ago
I dunno... If the actor wasn't buff and topless it wouldn't have been as good. If the actor was fat and topless it would have seemed obscene. If it was a busty woman in a tiny bikini top doing exactly the same thing, it would have seemed pretty sexist. Maybe those postmodern body politic semioticians actually do have valuable ideas to contribute to our digital world...
Jun8 16y ago
Well, maybe you think the guy's toplessness was a minor point because you're not in the target group, i.e. women. I forwarded that link to a few of my colleagues (was that a sexist thing to do?) and they absolutely swooned over the guy, so it was a major thing for them. The bottom line: for a lot of products, sex sells. The only question is how tactfully it is done.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  Well, maybe you think the guy's toplessness was a minor point because you're not in the target group, i.e. women. I forwarded that link to a few of my colleagues (was that a sexist thing to do?) and they absolutely swooned over the guy, so it was a major thing for them. But that's exactly my point: even though the guy's physique did nothing for me, there was still plenty for me to love in the campaign. As opposed to the Evony banner ads, on the other hand, which offer absolutely nothing to anyone not impressed by cleavage. The bottom line: for a lot of products, sex sells. The only question is how tactfully it is done. And this relates to my other point: some products are more inherently sexual than others. The entire premise of the Old Spice product (not just the campaign) is based on making oneself more attractive to the opposite sex. This is different than, say, Cisco Routers, where there is no natural connection between the sex used to sell the product, and the product itself.