Comic-Con is a major entertainment event for interacting with consumers (fans). It is more than comic books as it attracts film, television, and video game companies. In addition to fan feedback, Comic-Con provides the publicity opportunity provided by any recognized convention. The attractive women who frequently wear provocative outfits at Comic-Con and other conventions are called “Booth Babes.” These women are a form of public relations as their job is to attract attention and traffic to a booth. Companies pay large fees for booth and want floor traffic. Booth Babes work long hours and have to deal with sometimes “aggressive” constituents. It is not an easy and glamorous job but does have PR ties.
At the 2009 Comic-Con, EA (a major video game company) tried a questionable promotion related to Booth Babes. EA was trying to build interest in the release of game Dante’s Inferno. The PG rated version of the marketing idea is presented below. Basically the idea uses social media and “sex” to attract attention.
Convention attendees were asked to “commit acts of lust” with booth Babes, photograph the acts, and post those to social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Here is a link so a sample reaction http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/07/ea-puts-sexual-bounty-on-the-heads-of-its-own-booth-babes.ars
The winner would get a date with two women and prizes. Surprise, the reaction online and in person was negative. The contest was viewed as encouraging sexual harassment of women just trying to do their often difficult jobs. The Bad Pitch Blog reviews the purposeful action angle http://badpitch.blogspot.com/. The marketing action created negative publicity for EA. Some think it was a publicity stunt not a marketing effort. The belief is that EA was subscribing to the belief that any PR is good PR even when the content is negative.
EA did need to address this action that could damage their reputation. This is an incident rather than a crisis but still has reputation ramifications. So PR was used to redress the situation. EA offered the following response:
“We apologize for any confusion and offense that resulted from our choice of wording, and want to assure you that we take your concerns and sentiments seriously. We’ll continue to follow your comments and please let us know if you have any other thoughts or concerns. Keep watching as the event unfolds and we hope you’ll agree that it was all done in the spirit of the good natured fun of Comic-Con.” http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93429-EA-Apologize-for-Sin-to-Win-Wordinghttp://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93429-EA-Apologize-for-Sin-to-Win-Wording
*To see the racier version of the marketing message try http://www.gamingangels.com/2009/07/sexism-and-the-eadantes-inferno-sin-to-win-contest/
*To learn about booth babes you can visit the link below to information by the G4 Network. they did a special about what the job is really like. Has links to more information and pictures: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/697364/New-G4-Special-Looks-Deep-Into-Booth-Babes.html?utm_source=g4tv&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=TheFeed
Questions to Consider
- Why would this be an incident rather than a crisis?
- Do you agree or disagree that any publicity is good publicity? What lead you to your conclusion?
- How does this case illustrate the unique demands that come with public communication?
- What ethical issues do you see emerging from this case?
- How would you evaluate EA’s response in the case? What informs your evaluation?
- If you were at a meeting where the idea and sample message were proposed, what would you have said and why?
- Why would people at EA have thought this was a good idea?
- In addition to promoting harassment, what other negatives do you seeing being created by this action?