I like T&A as much as the next guy (emphasis on the latter) but personally, I consider a company trying to hawk their product to me by way of flashing skantilly clad women in my face to be an insult to my intelligence. It's also a poor marketing strategy if you want the business of the fairer sex, which I think is the point Breda was trying get across.
Let's look at another business. Hooters. Hooters entire business model is based upon T&A. Hooters knows they're losing out on the women market and they're entirely OK with that. The food is atrocious. It is so bad that there's literally no reason to go to a Hooters. I also find the entire business of ogling women working at such establishments to be kind of sleazy. It's like Hooters is saying "Our product sucks, but we're going to dangle some skin in front of you so you'll buy our crap, you dumb neanderthal."
That doesn't work on me, but judging by Hooters continued success it obviously works on plenty of poor saps. You can dangle a perfect bubblebutt in front of me and I'm still going to be lucid enough to know that your food tastes like the hairy graying cook with old balls lathered it in jock strap juice. Thanks but no thanks.
I'm generally not a fan of the dolled-up, eye candy "booth babe" concept. Sticking ass in my face is nice and all, but it's not going to make we want to buy your product. I can recall the eye candy booth babe being a fixture in the car scene when I was younger as well. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. This may surprise some readers, but I actually find it more annoying than anything. If we were talking about personable, enthusiastic, intelligent, knowledgeable sales reps who just happen to be attractive instead of just girls put there to be eye candy I'd be more supportive of the practice.
Apparently I'm in the in the minority here as a young, straight male consumer because evidence says throwing T&A in our face does work. Hell, maybe it even works on me, subconsciously, at a base level. That said, women are the fastest growing consumer demographic in the shooting sports. It might just be a good idea to employ marketing strategies that make them comfortable and attempt to bring them into what has been traditionally male dominated crowd I don't think randomly throwing young eye candy who like rule 3 violations into the mix is the way to accomplish that.
Who knows though, maybe having events with a bunch of shirtless Jason Statham and Gerard Butler look-a-likes carrying 1911's and big, long barrett 50 cal.'s will fight the "boys club" stereotype and provide the impetus for more women to get involved in the gun culture? Maybe they need shirtless Robert Pattinson look-a-likes instead?*
*totally off-topic, but a videogame where you play as a scantily clad Buffy or Willow and run around dispatching pale, effeminate, sparkly-studded vampires by all manner of gory & imaginative means would be awesome! I'd stake his life on that idea!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"scantily clad Buffy or Willow"
That's worth a pause and contemplation.
Thank you, Mike.
I mentioned last night in IRC that the concept of "booth babes" was degrading - to the men potentially going to the booth. You nailed it with this:
"Our product sucks, but we're going to dangle some skin in front of you so you'll buy our crap, you dumb neanderthal."
Exactly.
See Beer, Lite. "We know this is shit beer, but hey! we'll pay this hot (by arbitrary standards) model to hold it so that your dumb ass will think by drinking it you've got a snowball's chance in hell with her!"
After working with some guys that did marketing at trade show, I ran into some that didn't even take it "up" to that level. Some of them were more interested in them personally using the awarding of the "booth babe" positions as a way to get close to said "booth babe" candidates. Took sleezy to a new level.
Doesn't it also risk alienating a fairly large chunk of the male market? Specifically, the slightly older, more affluent males who are actually going to have the money to spend on products that retail for several hundred dollars a pop?
Never been to Hooters, but I never heard anything particularly good about the food itself, just the waitrons. There's a lesson there, I think. On the other hand, Buffalo Wild Wings is the bomb-diggety-shiz-nit. ;-)
I never swallowed the beer marketing either. Shiner Bock FTW!
"to know that your food tastes like the hairy graying cook with old balls lathered it in jock strap juice."
That's enough right there to make sure I never eat at a Hooters even if there's no other venue. You're right though, their food is terrible, and their beer sucks too.
Post a Comment