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

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.