My post "Using Marketing Booth Babes [1]" sparked some lively discussion. The original post asked marketer’s for their opinion on the practice of using booth babes (scantily clad women ... or men) to attract attention to their organizations booth at conferences and trade-shows. The use of sexual tension to create a direction for a movie plot or to sell products is an age-old strategy. However, many readers agreed that using sex as a way to suggest product "sizzle" was no longer very original, and in fact could be risky if it actually alienated potential purchasers.
So what is your opinion of the practice of using "Twitter Babes" to promote and draw in page followers? I'm not talking about spam accounts that are pornographic in nature. You can hit the block function on spammers easily enough. And I'm not talking about the properties where you might actually expect to see scantily clad women; for example, individuals who follow pages selling Victoria's Secret like brands and products probably expect to see women in lingerie. What I'm thinking about are those Twitter pages where the bio, homepage URL and even the customized background suggest a professional intention that in no way requires a string bikini woman or ripped abs man as the picture icon. The "June 2009 State of the Twittersphere [2]" report from the folks at HubSpot lists some interesting Twitter factoids:
• 79.79% fail to provide a homepage URL
• 75.86% of users have not entered a bio in their profile
• 68.68% have not specified a location
• 54.88% have never tweeted
Why are these factoids important? Because, when people are deciding whether to follow your page they look at your recent updates, bio, URL, location and picture icon to get a sense of who you really are. In short, Twitter is an extension of your brand. For that reason you should make sure your profile details, including your picture, supports your strategic goals and objectives.
[3]
[4]
[5]