Conventions: Members Versus Customers

[kevin_standlee]

The post-Eastercon discussions going on in eastercon and elsewhere include the question of those people who attend conventions viewing themselves solely as "paying customers." I suggested we may need to start printing a fine-print contract on membership materials, the way sporting events and concerts do on their tickets, such as:

THIS IS NOT A TICKET. You are a member of this convention. This event is being organized entirely by volunteers who are working without compensation and who had to pay for their own memberships and travel expenses. While the organizers will make a reasonable effort to present this event in the way it is described in its written materials, they cannot guarantee that all things will happen as planned. By purchasing this membership you explicitly acknowledge that all functions are subject to change or cancellation with or without notice for any reason whatsoever.

This is only a rough first effort, but I think you get the idea. It is a little sad that I can say that I'm quite serious that we may really need to do this or face threats of litigation for "false advertising" and "breech of contract" with attendees.

Comments

[marahsk.livejournal.com]

Heh. Been there, done that (in my case it was Brent Spiner), never got a t-shirt. :)

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

Whoo boy. Lots to think about here.

How about, rather than all the gobble-dee-gook, simply saying "Program Subject to Change Without Notice" (or "programme" if you speak English).

And an extra stamped word/ribbon/whatever on every worker and panelist badge saying "Volunteer".

Hmmmm...."Program Subject to Change Without Notice" stamps on every member/customer's hands, maybe?

Having done some work on customer service in a mostly volunteer operation, I agree with those above saying it doesn't matter what they're called. They should be treated as customers. So far I always have been.

Re: members are customers

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

It's possible I wasn't clear, I'll assume that.

I understand there are idiots who think that legal action makes sense. But what I'm hearing is that people are saying something like "Your convention sucks because you aren't doing X and therefore I'm entitled to sue you." I break that down into two parts:

(1) "Your convention sucks because you aren't doing X"
(2) "and therefore I'm entitled to sue you."

The first part is important feedback. The second part is silly. To me, focusing on the second part is saying to the fan, "We don't accept your input and we aren't going to change." I really think it makes more sense to focus on the first part.

I work in a corporate environment where customers spend thousands of dollars a month with us. Some of them have shaky business models and/or a shaky understanding of the law and so they threaten to sue us about whatever is bothering them. In a relationship, a lawsuit is an alternative to negotiation; it means, "I no I'm not going to persuade you and I don't care what kind of relationship we have in the future, you're so unreasonable that I'm going to persuade a third party to force you to give me what I want." It's an emotional reaction, not a considered business decision, in almost all cases; other customers curse when they aren't happy.

So basically when a customer starts talking lawsuit, it ends our attempt to provide service to them. We just say, "Okay, sir, I'll just transfer you to our legal counsel." It doesn't resolve the customer's real problem.


I occasionally shop at Wal-Mart. Really not often, because just about every time I go there, something they do annoys me. I tend to think many people have similar experiences. And yet, if everyone who was annoyed with them sued them, they'd need as many lawyers as they have cashiers (maybe more, because they don't have enough cashiers and I end up having to wait twenty minutes in line, one of the many things that annoys me). In practice, I, and most people who are annoyed by their schtick, just go somewhere else most of the time. For every person who thinks a lawsuit is a good idea, a couple hundred people just quietly stop shopping.


From a conrunning perspective, I think it's the couple hundred people who stop buying memberships that we should be worrying about, not the one crank who misunderstands the law.


From a legal perspective, if this kind of complaint came to me, I'd say, "Well, I don't think you understand the law. I'm happy to talk to you about your concern, if you like." If they still natter about a lawsuit, I'd say, "Okay, talk to your lawyer, they'll explain things to you, have them contact us if they actually have any questions for us."

I agree with you that large print is a good idea. I just think there are legal consequences to any kind of ticket-like object that may create problems. There are other ways to communicate with people. I was at Norwescon last weekend; they have a little guidebook about their policies. There are a few things in their book that suggest a very strange history of past problems. I'm not opposed to doing something like this to tell people what a convention will and won't do; I just don't think a ticket-like object is the best legal way for a convention to accomplish this.
(cont'd)

Re: members are customers

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

(cont'd)

And I do think that we need to make more of an effort to accept feedback. At work, when a customer talks about legal action, they get referred to me before they ever talk to our corporate counsel (whose time is much better spent talking to government agencies about public policy than talking to some customer whose unhappy about a few dropped packets). I deal with their complaint as a suggestion for improvement, not as a threat. If someone made a mistake, we identify it, if we have a broken process, we fix it. I get paid to not accept the status quo and to not assume that problems can't be resolved. My performance is measured by customer satisfaction surveys and customer retention statistics, so if I can't find a solution and turn someone around, it affects my performance review and how I get paid. Once in a very great while, I have to refer someone along to our legal counsel; it is my experience that customers who talk to our legal counsel never really give us good scores on the customer satisfaction surveys. Conversely, the customer who can be turned around can often be persuaded to buy more services (i.e. if someone really doesn't want a few hours of downtime, we can sell them a high-availability solution), and they then also become a reference for their friends and other potential customers.


In almost all cases, a threat of legal action is really something that can be dealt with by listening and talking. It is almost never in the customer's (or member's) interest to actually go to court, and it should be possible to explain this to people. At a minimum, we need to listen to be able to use judgement as to how serious the legal threat is.

Conversely, if we are going to treat members as "members", we have to have a clear and visible channel whereby they can have an effective say in how things are done. I know a lot of conventions where senior committee treat their roles like feudal fiefs. I can also think of examples, in business and in fandom, where people use legal disclaimers and other legal measures as a way of avoiding input and change.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

ou keep professing not to grasp a difference between friendly behavior and "polite stranger" behavior, which I find so bizarre and which puts you back on that other planet you claim to prefer to inhabit.


I agree that some SMOFs may not have complete social skill sets. I sure don't. I often make mistakes with people. I don't consider this to be a defect unique to conrunners, though.

I will say that if you have a problem with the way your friend treated you, I think that's an issue between you and your friend.

And, like many word-oriented geeks, in a stressful situation, I sometimes get fairly formal, wordy, and excessively precise with people if I perceive a lack of communication. The people who accept this flaw of mine are my friends. The people who don't are not. One of the things I like about fandom (and this isn't universal but it is common) is the way people accept each other's social quirks.

I've been on committees with a lot of annoying people. Not only do I not consider the committee to be the reason I work on conventions, I often tell my friends, "We're doing this for the membership, not for ."

Re: No Spectators

[bovil.livejournal.com]

So the conservatism was just incidental to the actual complaint. Since you were talking WisCon, that's actually a surprise.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

Oh, if only people actually bothered to read the convention publications. I swear, blackfyr and I could have laid in "Fnord" as filler text in half of any program book we ever assembled for BayCon and not had a soul bring it to our attention aside from Michael.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

So are you sure all your staff and volunteers were happy?

What I wrote was, "I did my very, very best to ensure they knew exactly how special they were, and how wonderful was their creation."

That means that I did my best -- and our division heads did their best -- and so on. When someone worked for me directly, I tried very hard to make them feel special. And I did my level best to make sure the entire committee -- at *all* levels (and you damned betcha that meant at-con volunteers) -- got what praise I could give and some of my time if they wanted it.

Does that means I didn't have to smack people and take names? No. *sigh* One of the problems with being in a management position in convention running is that we have to do that. We have to say, to someone we like...frequently a friend..."You've screwed up." Sometimes, we need to say, "You're fired."

That sucks. I don't every want to be in that position again.

But the praising part -- that I liked. :-)

The person whose inconsiderate act led me to resign my volunteer post at ConJose was also a staff member at your Worldcon (I see from its website), and so was the person to whom I said "I quit." (I'd never met either of them before; they're not the friend who said "May I help you?" If you want to know who they are, ask Kevin: I'm not posting their names.)

Heh. I did, and he did, and my (generic, unidentifiable) comments: "resignation causer" is not a good manager, but will do some effective work if aimed at the right kind of problem (and is better behaved now, btw). However, aiming and good directions are needed there.

I don't know who you resigned *to*, but "impersonal communicator" has mmm...health-related issues that cause some of the behavior you observed, especially in high-fatigue situations. (If it makes you feel better, or at least less alone, I get *exactly* the same behavior from "impersonal communicator," who I have known, and very well, for 16 years. So does impersonal communicator's *spouse* when convention fatigue is involved.)

Through all of this, I think it's important to note that: (1) the fannish community is not known as one where interpersonal communication skills are highly honed; (2) we don't have nearly enough good management or supervisory talent; and (3) we can only hope that, in the heat of a Worldcon, we all behave *courteously* -- we may not always be able to manage "warmly."

I understand your comments about how you felt you were treated -- but let's not make this a "conrunner" thing. It's the same way in all structures which are, by necessity, hierarchical. Some people at levels up in the hierarchy will understand nobless oblige...others will only see exploitable serfs below them -- people who don't count. We need to smack those latter.