More convention thoughts

[talyen]

I keep thinking about ConFusion. I keep wanting to work with people to make it better: improve attendance, improve revenue (at least get us back into the black), continue to bring in more attendees and panelists from out-state, continue and improve getting high-quality volunteers.

The first two seem the most important. I think there may be many ideas about how to do this, but I am not sure how it is actually done. The only thing I am sure about is that while getting back into the black may not happen in one year, some structure change is needed. As talks with others have made me aware, in years where the economy is bad, volunteerism increases, and I'd like to make that we have room for volunteers while still being able to get enough paying members that we can afford to run a convention.

It is possible that I may be nominated for ConChair for this year, so I am thinking wtih a lot of seriousness about these things. rmeidaking and I had a thoughtful discussion about the structure of any new ConCom. The purpose of the discussion was to make sure we understood the definitions of ConCom, staff, and volunteer, before we asked anyone else to do any work on the convention. There will be job descriptions this year. The current structure provides for 30 ConCom, 5 staff, and lots of volunteers. We'll have room in the program book for ESVs (Extra-Special Volunteers) if we have some.

There's a lot to think about, and lots of people for me to still hear. When a problem will take years to solve, it's good to listen for a long time before deciding how to try to fix it.

Comments

[tammylc.livejournal.com]

What's your definition of staff vs concom? Re. the volunteerism thing as it relates to staffing. The background here is that ConFusion used to have concom (department heads, really) and that at-con staffing was done pretty much exclusively through gophers who signed up at-con. Then the economy got really good, we got many fewer gophers, and were faced with choices like closing the consuite because no one was available to run it! In response we started encouraging people to staff their departments - ie. arrange in advance for a number of volunteers that would minimally cover the staffing needs, with supplementation by whatever gophers could be acquired at-con.

Staff were also expected to be more committed than general gophers, work more hours if necessary, and ideally to have some advance training and responsiblity. This definition has been particularly lost in recent recruitment of staff - for example, there were several consuite "staff" this year who were attending their first convention.

Now of course, the economy is down again and we're having to turn away at-con volunteers. But I don't think this necessarily means we should do away with the concept of staff, especially if the emphasis of staff vs volunteers is one of advance training and responsibility, not just filling an interchangeable slot. This is especially important as ConFusion gets a little more structure to the way in which things are done.

Gee, do I need to start attending Tios gatherings so I can get in on these thoughtful discussions?

[talyen.livejournal.com]

You should definitely attend Tios! We have fun. (:

The possible definition, depending on who is ConChair, of course, would be something like, "ConCom are department heads, and spend at least 10 hours on the convention before the convention, and at least 10 hours at the convention on the convention."

Staff would be people who spend at least 10 or 12 hours on the convention, at the convention.

Volunteers will be needed, and the economy is certainly providing them, to fill in all the other duties at-con that can be trained. Decision-making will stay with department-heads, who are concom, and their delegated staff in the couple areas where that is necessary (mainly, 24 hour areas, money, and kids).

That's the current noodling, anyway. Nothing is set, since we don't have a conchair!

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

Does that include travel time?

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

Obviously we have to promote the convention with tables, advertisements, and parties. Though these are mostly to show the community is active and to remind people they had a good time the last time they came. So we shouldn't risk a lot of money or people points for these, because in return. In particular, one can't judge the success of a local con ad or party on the basis of how many memberships one gets as a direct result, so one can't think "we have to advertise to attract members to solve a financial problem".

I would certainly like to see the convention grow. But if I were responsible for a budget, I would be scaling back to get a lower break-even point. All conventions are subject to unpredictable demographic conditions (and, for Confusion, weather conditions as well). It makes more sense to plan a bit low and make a small surplus than to come up short and have people stress about the money. If the con is only going to bring in 650 members, or 500, it's still worth doing. If it meets its budget numbers, that's a success, not the warm body count.

I think the way to grow any fan organization is one person at a time. One has to rely on word of mouth. What that means is running the best convention possible for the people who are showing up. If the members have a great time, they'll bring their friends.

It also means that senior concom members need to be visible at other conventions and organizations. This is particularly important with the local cons and fan groups; by definition they're going to be the mainstay of membership and committee.

IMO, the only reliable way to attract out-of-town fans is to have the committee volunteer on Worldcons. If a Worldcon committee is represented by people from a particular local con, that con can hit the radar of Worldcon bidders who will then come and bring people and parties to the local con. If a bid knows that twenty people from a particular area are coming to work on the Worldcon, they know thost people are probably voters. Of course, parties and ads at other cons are also good, but this is kind of organic; it relies heavily on the people who are travelling having friendships in the place they are travelling to.

But overall I really think that the most secure path to growing a convention is just to run a great convention.

[talyen.livejournal.com]

Wish I were going to Glasgow, of course! It would be my first WorldCon. But I think there are others going.

I do want to go to more conventions this year. It would be fun, and I'm trying to pick a couple that I can afford this year. We'll see if that helps. (:

[brendand.livejournal.com]

Only 5 staff? Doesn't that only cover OPS? What about ConSuite(both) and Reg? They each (IIRC) have gophers and staff.

[talyen.livejournal.com]

Staff at this point would be 3 for Ops, 2 for each consuite, 1 each for Green Room, KidFusion, Registration, maybe Art Show. When a division head is in charge, staff actually can make decisions, so there aren't very many needed, and only in places where there's money or 24-hour space. Everyone else is gopher, or the new term, "Volunteer."

Cuts down on the comps? No. Because it still takes a bunch of work to run the convention. It will still take about 80 people putting in 8+ hours to run the convention, and about 40 more panelists doing 3+ panels, and GoHs and previous GoH contributions, to make the convention the excellent adventure that it is today.

We'll just be calling them something else, and putting them in different buckets, I think. Reminding people what they're doing. And we could ask ConCom and staff if they'd like to contribute $10 in addition to the 30+ (for ConCom) and 20+ (for staff) hours they're already working. I just don't know that it's worth it for the $400 + bad feelings it would generate.

I'd rather change the pre-reg deadlines, and bump the rate for it and KidFusion early. Especially after hearing all the debate yesterday. I am concerned that information is already on the web page for next year, since we don't have a budget approved for next year yet.