I’m commenting more on the article than the practice. It’s clear that someone wrote this with a splashy headline and juicy intro to make it seem like some new phenomenon that perfectly dove tails with current events about sexual harassment or lack of company diversity.
I mean, I don't work in Silicon Valley, but it was my impression that this sort of thing _used_ to be common, but had largely gone away now. I'm very surprised that it is (apparently) more common than ever, especially in the current climate.
How is that a splashy headline? Are you referring to "sneaking"?
> “The companies don’t want their staff to be talking to someone and think, Oh, this person was hired to socialize with me,” says Kermaani, who’s sending models to seven tech parties in the same weekend.
It's just accurate.
And where in the article is there any implication that this is an entirely new thing?
> say a record number of tech companies are quietly paying [..] it’s part of an older trend. Tech companies have long used models to run their booths at trade shows such as CES in Las Vegas, hype up crowds at product launches, and direct foot traffic at conferences. That said, this year’s record-setting requests for the minglers, known as “ambiance and atmosphere models,” are a step beyond what the industry has seen before, says Chris Hanna, who’s run TSM Agency since 2004 and counts among his clients “one of the largest search engines in the world.”
The agencies themselves seem to say it's reaching a new level in both number and now becoming about a generic fun-ness, rather than more specific tasks, like sit in this booth and be pretty. But other than that, the article outright says it's not new.
The record numbers are not up for debate anyway I guess, but as for the "type" of engagement, if you imply this has always been so generic and fake, what's your source for making that claim?
> that perfectly dove tails with current events about sexual harassment or lack of company diversity.
So you are you saying it doesn't? Can you eloborate on how sexism has nothing to do with it, then?
It's a splashy headline. "Sneaking" is unnecessary. Replace the word with "Hiring", you don't sneak atmosphere models into a party, you hire them and they show up. There's also no point in calling out this year's parties, this has happened at a bunch of parties for at least the last two decades. It's not even exclusive to Silicon Valley!
Tradeshow models, booth models, and atmosphere models are also not the same. Tradeshow models must at least know about the product they are representing to discuss it with a potential customer. Atmosphere models must be very sociable and capable of carrying good conversation with anyone, you cannot just turn a cold shoulder to someone you don't find interesting. Booth models are mostly there to look pretty and maybe help with generic marketing tasks like passing out flyers.
Pointing out that the practice isn't new in the article doesn't mean the article itself transforms into something new and becomes a breath of fresh air. It's still a rehash of old ideas made to feed off current events to produce a bit of ad revenue from people looking to keep their outrage up to date.
So yes, I'm saying this does perfectly fit into current events. It was designed to.
I think "sneak" means they are trying to pass them off of friends of employees, even instructing them to say so, as opposed to disclosing why they are there. Lying to your employees, even "white lies", is sneaky.
> It's a splashy headline. "Sneaking" is unnecessary. Replace the word with "Hiring"
No, it's simply accurate:
> Most models’ contracts say they won’t exchange contact information with party guests, and that gets tougher to handle with grace when they’re legally bound to pretend they’re guests, too.
Legally bound ro pretend. Are booth and trade show girls also legally bound to pretend they're not hired? Of course not. So again, you claimed this isn't new, do and I asked you to back it up. Simply because I'm not aware of this practice having a long history and the article doesn't give info on that either. You pretend you know something, now show you know something. But instead you talk again only what nobody can prove or refute, the motivations of the author of the piece (nevermind how much of the article is straight quotes from people running such agencies, but I guess those just want to foster "outrage", too).
> Pointing out that the practice isn't new in the article doesn't mean the article itself transforms into something new and becomes a breath of fresh air.
Who said any of that? The article says the general practice to hire models isn't new, but the practice of faking it becoming common at such scale is. You seem to disagree, because you said how the article "makes it seem" as if any of it is new. That's implying it's not new. You have not managed to back up that implied claim so far, not in in the slightest. Talking about what nobody can prove or disprove, the motivations of the author, is like adding another level below the lowest level of disagreement: you're not even disagreeing with the tone, you're disagreeing with what you make up in your head.
> So yes, I'm saying this does perfectly fit into current events. It was designed to.
What does that even mean? That the journalist Jedi mind tricked these companies to hire atmosphere models at unprecedented levels so they can write about it? If you get upset at the word "sneaking" in this context, like it's some solar system sized alien mothership of clickbait, you're not making a point, you're designing a straw man. Look no further for "design".
