Where Does the Worldcon's Money Go?

[kevin_standlee]

With the minor storm over L.A.con IV deciding that spending more than $30,000 to provide wi-fi service to their members was not a good use of the convention's resources (I agree), there has been some discussion of what a Worldcon spends its money on. There are some (IMO uniformed) people out there who have a hard time thinking that a Worldcon is spending money on anything because so much of what the convention must do is either invisible or taken for granted. So I dug through my files and did a rough breakdown of ConJose's income and expense by major category. I had to fiddle around quite a bit because the budget was arranged by division, but the expenses that get people excited are not necessarily neatly arranged. That's why there are several "other" categories and a miscellaneous into which a lot of small items from throughout the convention were rolled. If you really want to know this at a fine level of detail, e-mail me and I'll send you the line-item budget.

Another adjustment I made was to show only the net Art Show income (after paying the artists), rather than the gross. (ConJose's records showed the gross sales as income -- needed for sales-tax reporting -- and the payments to artists as a convention operating expense. I consider it misleading to show 15% of the convention's revenue that way because it's sequestered -- everything except the convention's commission goes to the artists.

So first we have how the convention's approximately $850,000 in revenue (net of art show; it was nearly $1 Million with that included) came to us. (I expect you'll need to click on the small graphics to get them large enough to read.)

As you can see, convention memberships are pretty much what keeps the con afloat. The other revenue is important, of course, but it's memberships that drive the convention.

Now, how did we spend that money? Since these reports are prepared four years after the convention and nearly a year after ConJose's Final Report to WSFS, they include all of the convention's revenue. ConJose has spent all of the money it took in. The total expenses, like the total revenue, were approximately $850,000. (I'd rather not introduce spurious precision here by quoting it to the penny, particularly because trying to aggregate reports like this across multiple years' reports means that there will be minor inconsistencies, but they are on the order of <0.5%.)

If you look at this, vast swaths of expenses are things like renting the convention center and paying the decorator (that's the tables and chairs and other furniture inside the convention center -- it ain't free, folks), or are things that are considered "entitlements" -- the post-con reimbursements. Things that get people so excited, like the Con Suite or Tech Services (shown separately from the Event-specific costs because ConJose had Tech Services in a different division than Events; that is, no one Event was charged the fixed cost of obtaining the tech kit any more than Programming wasn't charged the cost of renting the function rooms or Exhibits the cost of the Exhibit Halls; therefore, Events overall looks inexpensive.)

"Member Services" includes costs of Registration, Childcare, Scooters, and a number of smaller items. "Administration Other" includes the cost of renting office space for the two years leading up to and immediately after the convention.

Also note that Hugo Awards looks a little high, but that's because it was charged not only the direct cost of the trophies and plaques (about $5,600) but also costs associated with printing and mailing the Nominating ballot (mailed separately from a PR) and also of sending 2003 Nominating Ballots to all of ConJose's members to remind them that they were eligible to nominate.

Again, anyone who wants the fine details behind these numbers should write to me directly and I will send you the latest and I think last version (revision 50) of the ConJose budget, which shows every line item on which we received or spent money.

This message is posted as public. If you want to send it on to someone else or point people at it, I don't care, and you don't need to ask my permission to do so.

Edit, 10:45: Based on a comment, added explanation that expenses were also $850,000, the same as revenue.

Edit, 11:30: Modified the pie charts so that the charts themselves and their ScrapBook Gallery descriptions include the gross amount of approximately $850,000.

Comments

[redneckotaku.livejournal.com]

I have a question for you. Where is the marketing money? The money you spend on Ads in other convention programs, fan table related costs (especially at the big show), Radio advertisements like N4. Is that part of publications budget? I am surprised the con spends 13% of income on publications. I wonder if all of that goes to Progress Reports and the on-site convention publications. If so, I would think it may be smart that future Worldcons should have E-mail updates instead of paper ones. It would save money and leave future worldcons the ability to market (especially domestic ones). I could be misreading the pie chart entirely, though.

[galtine1.livejournal.com]

There are still people out there who refuse to use the Internet for communication, so going "totally .pdf" would not work for a Worldcon.

Allowing people the option, some smaller conventions already do this, but with Worldcon being "committee of the year" rather than an on-going committee year-after-year, it's very hard to force them (each committee) to do the same thing.

Budgeting for Radio spots is difficult depending on the region you live in. I have no real numbers, but I'll bet just based on potential listernship that a spot in LA/SanJose/Chicago/Boston will be many times more $$ than a spot in Denver/Kansas City/Seattle/Phoenix.

Also, Worldcon is not able to scale-up it's volunteers with a massive influx of people who want to be entertained. I personally do not want to see a Comic-con sized Worldcon before the Worldcon community can handle it. There's enough horror stories around Comic-con's growth spurt to 100,000 attendees to make most people walk away from working/volunteering for it.

I think your concept of applying Real Business Marketing to a Volunteer Run Event cannot be applied 100%. Aspects of it, absolutely, but not all of it. Or we just become another Gate-Show parading the Pros around like Dogs and Ponies.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Hm, let's see.

Pre-Con Publications:

Printing, $25,445
Postage, $7,147
Other, $585
Total Pre-Con: $33,177

At-Con Publications:

Souvenir Book, $23,166
Pocket Program, $15,274
Restaurant Guide, $12,952
Newsletter, $2,932
Hugo Awards Program, $694
Other, $600
Total At-Con: $55,618

Publications Division Total: $93,514
The division total includes expenses (including some of those below) that are not allocated to pre-con or at-con publications, like the Press Office.

Marketing is more difficult to report because the line items are all over the budget in different divisions, but the ones I can see quickly are:

Advertising (Other Conventions), $977
Flyer Printing, $1,826
Promotional Parties, $3,250
Total Marketing: $6,053

Note that this does not include as expense (or income) advertising swaps where we traded ads in our publications for those in other convention's publications.

Promotional Parties were mostly at other Worldcons, but also at BayCon and Westercon because of their particular interest to our specific Worldcon.

I am surprised the con spends 13% of income on publications.

I'm not. I'm surprised it isn't higher. I think it was a larger proportion of the convention's budget in the past.

I would think it may be smart that future Worldcons should have E-mail updates instead of paper ones.

This pre-supposes that every single member has e-mail and a web browser. You may find this difficult to believe -- forums such as LiveJournal select against such people -- but we do have members who do not use computers, or if they do, do not use e-mail or web browsers. My wife falls into this category. She'd be furious if you made publications electronic only, because you'd be saying to her, "We don't want you as a member."

I'd really not like to see the Worldcon Souvenir Book go away, either. That's sort of the "school yearbook" of our annual reunion, and I think they're worthwhile. OTOH, when done correctly, advertising for such publications pays for their production costs, so they are approximately revenue-neutral.

What I would suggest is that Worldcons give members an opportunity to opt-out of receiving paper pre-con publications in favor of being e-mailed and told that the latest PR is available as a PDF, in return for a discount on their convention membership of $5 or $10. Most Worldcons already allow members to opt out of mailings because some people don't want to receive multiple copies of publications at the same address when multiple members (such as families) live there. This would just give the member an incentive to opt out in favor of e-publication.

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

What I would suggest is that Worldcons give members an opportunity to opt-out of receiving paper pre-con publications in favor of being e-mailed and told that the latest PR is available as a PDF, in return for a discount on their convention membership of $5 or $10.

I wouldn't, at least not offer that choice as a discount. Yes, the cost per member of the precon publications is about $5-$6. But there isn't enough data to know how many people will need to opt-out in order to see the actual savings in the publications line item. The PRs still need to be printed. And they usually get printed at a price break that it would take a huge percentage of the membership opting out to see any difference.

There is more actual savings on the postage, but most of that is bulk mailings so there wouldn't be a lot of savings there either.

And then there's the extra work for the Registrar to keep track of who got the discount and who didn't, extra complication to online sales, and then dealing with transfers. If the original owner opted-out, does the new owner have to pay another $5 in order to get the remaining PRs?

You might as well also offer a discount if a member declines to take the souvenir book or restaurant guide.

This is just another variation of the "a la carte" memberships but in reverse. If a member isn't going to use certain services, should they be paying a lower membership rate? i.e. a dealer who is sitting behind his table all day might not be going to the program.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't, at least not offer that choice as a discount.

While I understand the concern about the "slippery slope" to a la carte pricing, the reason I'd consider this is because I want to give people an incentive to do something I want them to do. As a conrunner, I'd be delighted to be able to drive my publications costs down. As it stands now, a trivial number of people opt out (when I allow it in my database) for their own reasons. If I give people a cash incentive to do what I want, a really significant number of people might take it, enough to make a dent in my total publications expenses.

I expect there are people who would prefer having $5 or $10 instead of the at-con publications. A la carte pricing is very attractive to people. Tom Whitmore even worked out a way to do a la carte Programming so that the Participants would get paid. Every member would be issued convention scrip for the value of their membership. Programming slots and rooms would be auctioned off to the highest bidders, who would charge whatever they wanted to get into that item. People could pay in scrip or cash. The participants would get the scrip and cash. Collect enough scrip and the convention would reimburse your membership or maybe more. (No details were ever worked out that I recall.) This was the "free market" approach, and was intended to be aimed at those people who consider themselves Ghod's Gift to Worldcon and insist that they must be on a panel because the public demands it.

However, I wouldn't really want a fully a la carte converntion, because the administration would indeed become overwhelming. Most amusement parks have all-inclusive pricing for this reason.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

While I understand the concern about the "slippery slope" to a la carte pricing, the reason I'd consider this is because I want to give people an incentive to do something I want them to do.

Well, I wanted people to actually read the progress reports -- which they are much more likely to do if we send them physical copies. (And yes, there are studies that this is still the case. It's old-fashioned push...always much better than the pull involved with a PDF, and much much better than trying to push out a pre-con publication -- which is a marketing tool -- and hope to get any use out of it.)

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

and much much better than trying to push out a pre-con publication

*doh* That should say "and much better than trying to push out a pre-con publication by email..."

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

...enough to make a dent in my total publications expenses.

Well, starting with the 66th Worldcon, the publications budget should be smaller. With the two year lead time, instead of three, there should be two fewer PRs to print and mail.

Much of the material in the (current) first two years can easily be condensed into one year of PRs.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

It would probably cost a chunk of that $5 just to keep track of the discounts. Especially when the number of people for whom the difference between $195 and $200 is significant is a very small number, but the registration and accounting procedures and records still have to be altered to accommodate the possiblity.

People who want a discount can register early or volunteer and get reimbursed afterwards. I've looked at the inflation-adjusted prices; LACon is well below the historical trend of prices.

[redneckotaku.livejournal.com]

I would accept the idea of a discount on membership for an electronic Progress Report. I printed the Worldcon site selection and Hugo ballots from the web instead of waiting an extra three weeks for progress reports by bulk mail.

[yourbob.livejournal.com]

I would be happy with access to a pdf progress report, etc. I don't want a refund/reduced cost, though. I'd rather my $5 be used to put on a better con.

[jbriggs.livejournal.com]

Promotional Parties, $3,250

Wow!

Conzilla>'s party expenses were $2,500 and we spent nearly all of it.

This tells me that promotional parties are not worth the advertising dollars spent on them.

Wow.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

You may well be right. Most of the post-election promotional parties a Worldcon holds are held because they're expected of them -- parties at subsequent Worldcons. (That cost should go down by 50% now that we've returned to two-year lead time.) ConJose held parties at BayCon and Westercon as much to attract staff volunteers as to sell memberships. It's hard to say whether such parties are worthwhile, because it's more than just "how many people bought memberships at those parties," (if that's the only criteria, you shouldn't hold parties) but also "how much goodwill did you generate for your convention," which is much more difficult to measure.

[jbriggs.livejournal.com]

I believe we did generate goodwill at our post-election parties, but not to the extent that it helped our budget. In retrospect we should have re-allocated promotional budgets ($500 advertising, $2500 parties) more equally and not hit Arizona so heavily. As it was we were hitting 2-3 San Diego conventions and 2-4 Arizona conventions annually, we also promoted in L.A. heavily. We started to eliminate planned parties because they were costing more than revenues generated; against my better judgement we decided to host parties at Baycon and Leprecon this year (Baycon because, well, you know, and Leprecon because we'd tapped the Arizona market and we'd run out of steam); someone at the last minute volunteered to coordinate, and of course we got the expected result of no memberships. Its possible we got a few at-the-doors from Arizona folks. It was a complete waste of funds for BayCon - as it was in 2005. I know that ConJecture sells almost no memberships at BayCon.

Regarding goodwill, we had loads from Arizona having been to four Coppercon's, three Leprecons, a TusCon and a Westercon in promoting the bid and convention. The post ConKopelli Phoenix Fission worried us a little but we were on good terms with all parties so the effect was negligible for us. Outside of LA/SD, Arizona was the largest population group to attend Conzilla.

The things that hurt us most were the ovious ones: AnimeExpo the same weekend, ComicCon two weeks after, and Worldcon in August, all geographically close. The Economy Stupid effect hurt a little too.

Thanks for putting up the budget charts. Wish we had something like this in 2002 (^: Getting sample budgets from people was like pulling teeth.

[cherylmorgan.livejournal.com]

Getting money to spend on marketing a Worldcon is very difficult. It isn't seen as a priority by many fans. Indeed, the "not part of our community" crowd actively oppose it because they don't want the convention to attract "undesirables". Less extreme people still worry about the effectiveness of marketing. We don't have many people with the professional experience to know where and how to advertize. Many committees are terrified of accidentally mis-selling the event and having hordes of angry media fans demanding to know where all the actor guests are, and so on. Marketing often ends up as a guerilla activity done by those who feel it is important.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

We don't have many people with the professional experience to know where and how to advertize.

That's very true. This is certainly one of those areas where someone who thinks it's easy is welcome to volunteer their skills and experience. Those of us who know a little about marketing often have other skills that are more useful. Assigning good people to create a better convention improves the "product", which is a key component of marketing.

And regardless of all this, the absolute best method of marketing for any convention, large or small, is word of mouth from fan to fan.

Even some commercial organizations are leaning towards this; a lot of DVDs are able to be made now because of they have no marketing budget, because the studios really do rely on fandom to spread the word about cool stuff that is becoming available. A lot of marketing for special-interest or information-content products relies more on legwork and people power than on spending money. That doesn't show up in a purely financial budget, but the allocation of human resources is certainly part of the overall business plan.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Getting money to spend on marketing a Worldcon is very difficult. It isn't seen as a priority by many fans.

Yeah, too many people in fandom seem to believe in "Field of Dreams Marketing": If you build it, they will come.

Yeah, right.

(I would have happily budgeted even more on N4 marketing, but we just didn't have enough staffing in marketing areas. Marketing iks a dirty word, often, in fandom.)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Quite so. I'd suggest that a first step be philosophical. Most Worldcons have a division called "Publications." If I were organizing one (I'm not!), I'd have a division of "Marketing & Communications," where the various publications are areas within the division. You need to start early with this idea that Marketing Is Not Evil. Yes, you'll lose the support of people who insist that the convention should be exactly the way it was back when they got involved in fandom (these are the people who in their hearts want Worldcon to be the 50-100 people they like, with all those other icky people excluded), but I'm not sure that's such a loss.

We need to look at conventions that don't think Marketing is Evil, like ComicCon and anime cons like FanimeCon, and learn something from them. It's not like there is nobody in Worldcon-running fandom familiar with marketing concepts, starting with you, Deb, and including people like Craig Miller. Indeed, if one were trying to form a "dream team" of Worldcon runners, I might suggest the two of you running such a division.

[(Anonymous)]

If I were organizing one (I'm not!), I'd have a division of "Marketing & Communications," where the various publications are areas within the division. You need to start early with this idea that Marketing Is Not Evil.

For N4, we had the marketing functions, including web services, answering directly to me and my staff. That makes more sense, I think, since these are areas that often need rapid response time and a more "executive" viewpoint by the supervisor.

Although the marketing function sort of looks like it's related to publications, it's really very different in execution, and very few of the people who are outstandikng at one area will also be outstanding in another.

Craig Miller. Indeed, if one were trying to form a "dream team" of Worldcon runners, I might suggest the two of you running such a division.

Such a combination might well exceed the snarkiness quotient of any Worldcon...indeed, of any three Worldcons...

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Such a combination might well exceed the snarkiness quotient of any Worldcon...indeed, of any three Worldcons...

No doubt. But I think it would be fun, nonetheless. For added interest, make the Worldcon not be in either the LA or Boston areas, so nobody could accuse either of you of some sort of unreasonable regional bias, but instead approach it as interesting challenge.

Hm, a Worldcon "dream team." 'Tis an interesting concept. Of course, the last time it was tried, we ended up with "7 for '77" and disaster ensued. (This was before both our times, but that's the story, as I've heard it.)

7 for 77

[(Anonymous)]

Oh... it was interesting. I was asked to run the dealer's room at Balticon... in 1977. Balticon was on Easter.

And kiddies... this was before e-mail. Strictly post office and telephone.

Interstingly enough, Don Lundry (chair of SunCon)has moved to Virginia. He has been known to show up at WSFA meetings.

Michael Walsh

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

By the way...that anonymous comment awaiting your approval is mine. Absent-minded, I am. Old, I am getting.

[cherylmorgan.livejournal.com]

Style, yours, we are recognizing.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I'm particulary interested in marketing for non-US worldcons, where I think marketing is a real priority, because you need to tell local fans why Worldcon is different to their local con and why they should go - you need to market to your core constituency (which you don't really need to do for a US Worldcon in the same way, as I understand it).
Its definitely one of the ways in which I think Aussiecon 3 dropped the ball somewhat.

[cherylmorgan.livejournal.com]

It is certainly true that North Americans are more aware of what Worldcon is like than people outside the US. There's a good chance they will have been to one. But even so a Worldcon can be quite different to a local US convention. One of the interesting things about overseas Worldcons is that you tend to get committees vowing to do things "our way" instead of the "the American way", whereas in fact the ideas they wants to chuck out are more a function of the sheer size of the event than of its Americanness.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Radio advertisements like N4.

N4 used radio ads, and we were the first Worldcon to buy Google "adwords." Advertising expenditure is difficult with a Worldcon because there's not an easy (and truly cost-effective) way to find our "niche" in the regional population.

Still, we (N4) budgeted ~$20K for advertising as such (radio ads, Google buy, direct mail, flyers at cons, parties at cons). There was another chunk that could be considered useful in marketing (but not advertising as such), including most of our pre-con publications and our web site.

Unlike ConJose, our publications budget was about 9% of our total expense: about $83K -- but the publications cost was "offset" by advertising revenues of $35K.

I wonder if all of that goes to Progress Reports and the on-site convention publications.

Actually, most of the $$ is spent on at-con publications -- or was for N4. Even after postage is factored in, mailed progress reports accounted for less than half of the publications budget.

[cherylmorgan.livejournal.com]

Was it possible to analyze the effectiveness of those ads at all? I'd love to know what, if anything, worked.

We tried hard to make the Events publications at Interaction self-financing, but of course they wouldn't have been anywhere near so if I'd charged for the hours I spent on the phone and writing emails beating my head against a brick wall. The UK publishers were particularly difficult - while the editors were mostly very keen, the corporate PR people didn't think that Worldcon or the Hugos had any relevance to them. Those of them that had actually heard of the Hugos seemed convinced that the awards were only for American books/authors.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

Was it possible to analyze the effectiveness of those ads at all? I'd love to know what, if anything, worked.

We know that the Google ad words did just fine by us...we could follow the trail of those who clicked through (because we used one of our domains for the ad words link that was not publicized or referred to anywhere else -- the wonder of multiple domains).

It is more difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the radio ads, but it's clear that they brought in some people from the local area. I wish we'd done more tracking.

One of the most effective of our marketing expenditures was a direct mailing we made to a pretty extensive list (gleaned from NESFA, Arisia, and previous Worldcon mailing lists, then whittled down to New England, New York, etc.) of those we knew were interested in SF conventions. That, coupled with Geri Sullivan's beautiful color flyer did get us some obvious results ('cuz we could see some returned via mail, and we blipped right after they started hitting mailboxes).

I wish we'd had the staff to do more blanketing of bookstores and libraries in the area with our flyers, however.

[cherylmorgan.livejournal.com]

Good news about the Google ads. Hopefully other people can follow that example now there's evidence that it works.

As to getting staff to blanket libraries and bookstores, it is kind of hard when people think "marketing" is a dirty word. Dave Stewart had a terrible time trying to get people to distribute fliers for Interaction.

[(Anonymous)]

As to getting staff to blanket libraries and bookstores, it is kind of hard when people think "marketing" is a dirty word.

For us, it was more a case of identifying people who could do this occasionally and getting a good geographic spread. We had two people who were responsible for shipping flyers to cons, and they did a very, very good job. But getting people to coordinate walking into libraries, etc., is tougher -- particularly in a spread-out geographical area.

It might be worth having a "paper day" where we turn it into a social occasion. Everybody gets a stack of flyers and a set of locations, then we meet for lunch afterward. Making the mundane fun makes people want to do it. :-)

[cherylmorgan.livejournal.com]

getting a good geographic spread

One of the greatest difficulties of marketing a UK Worldcon is that the vast majority of your attendees are not local. The geographic spread you need to market to is the whole of the UK.

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting that!

It might be useful to add into the comments sections the total expense amount. That way people can compute what each percentage point means. (It's useful to see the percentages, but some people may get more out of the aggregated line items.

i.e. that $31K (potential) expense for wireless is more than the entire ConJose Consuite/Hospitality cost!

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I was the one that wasn't clear.

In order to view the pie charts I had to click on them (as you suggested.) But then the "post" commentary is not available. I was just suggesting that the "picture" comments (the thing that starts with "Breakdown of 2002 Worldcon Expenses by category" be edited to include the total dollar amount.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Okay, done. For some reason, doing this increased the size of the images by almost a factor of ten!

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see how L.A.con IV's estimated revenues and budget breakout in the same categories looks (although we know that the reimbursments would be partially hidden). It sure puts the ACC wi-fi cost in perspective from the ConJosé view. $31k would have almost doubled ConJosé's tech budget.

[galtine1.livejournal.com]

And only those with wifi laptops would have benefitted vs. say the ConSuite (about the same $$) which was there for 100% of all attendees.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

<SPOCK>"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"</SPOCK>

Sorry, had to say it.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

I would argue the point. Many people never enter the con suite. For the one or two cans of soda most people take throughout a convention, on their way to what they actually want to do, it would be cheaper overall if people just went to the hotel gift shop.

Even the convention program is seen by perhaps 65% of the membership, and probably half of those people see three or fewer program items (not counting major events). Everybody experiences the convention differently; there are extremely few convention departments that can justify their budget on the basis of appealing to the entire convention membership.

I'm not arguing against a con suite; I realize that some people consider this an important part of the convention. I simply caution anyone not to assume that their way of thinking about a convention is the same as anyone else's.

[galtine1.livejournal.com]

My point wasn't that 100% would go to the Consuite, just that it was easily available for 100% where if you didn't have a wifi laptop, then the wifi was wasted $$ money on them.

Back in 2002, gad that's technologically long enough ago that wifi was relatively new to the not-so-techie, I don't think we had wifi for our personal laptops as yet.

deja vu

[psycho-machia.livejournal.com]

I remember this discussion.....

:-(

[gvdub.livejournal.com]

So here's a radical proposal. No pre-support discounts and succeeding conversions, no increasing prices as it draws closer to the con. $125 advance purchase, $150 at the door. No exceptions.

With ~5500 members, that puts memberships in the ballpark of 84% of an $850,000 budget, as you show here. At those prices, you'll probably do higher membership numbers, to boot.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

You won't gain enough new members to make up the lost revenue. If the core membership doesn't join early, they don't make plans that include their friends. The word-of-mouth multiplier is a very important effect in membership volumes. Without the advance discount, total membership could actually decline.

I don't have hard figures (it would take significant research), but I estimate that each member of the convention recruits approximately 0.15 to 0.2 members every six months. The old notion that money received early is worth more is actually only a small factor over the time frame of convention planning, but to the extent that a convention is about building the community, the people side of things can be quantified. It's important to strongly encourage the core membership to commit to their memberships early.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

On the surface, this is actually a reasonable-looking proposal. Unfortunately, I don't think it would work for a traveling convention like Worldcon. If we held the Worldcon in the same place every year, it would work, because you could use the huge surplus that Year N would generate to fund N+1. However, Worldcons are all one-shots. Ideally, you'd have every one of your memberships in hand no less than 90 days pre-con so you could make decisions.

The pricing you propose would exacerbate the growing trend toward people not making their purchasing decision until just before the convention. Since the convention has to commit to most of those expenses you see in the graph weeks and months before the con, they will be left holding the bag if people don't turn up on the door.

Most recent Worldcons have had to budget to be break-even or nearly so around the time they open the door. The at-the-door memberships are the convention's operational contingency reserve. (That's different from the strategic reserve, remember, which is what you set aside against catastrophic failures.)

I'd be happy to push more people into buying in advance, though. We've been escalating prices in small steps hoping to get people to buy early, but sometimes this backfires. I remember at the Westercon before ConJose trying to get someone to buy a ConJose membership (then $175), and he said, "Oh, I'll probably come, but the $200 at the door is not that much more, so I can afford to wait until the day of the convention before deciding." This sort of uncertainty drives Worldcon managers mad.