My Ears Are Burning
Oct. 1st, 2006 08:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kevin_standleeThis is, I'm afraid, going to be one of those enigmatic postings where, unless you have all of the rest of the pieces, you won't know what's going on. And there is always the possibility that I'm reading more into something I read today than I should, and seeing myself in something aimed at someone else.
People keep asking me, "When is the Bay Area going to hold another Worldcon?" I keep answering, truthfully, variations of, "I don't think it should until the local environment becomes less toxic."* I don't see a lot of things that make me think the necessary changes have happened yet. Oh, maybe some of them, but the toxic elements are still there. (Incidentally, I don't see anyone else emerging who seems interested in drowning himself in personal debt to do the necessary work. The previous two Bay Area Worldcons came near to financially ruining me and at least one other person. Anyone else want to try carrying that anvil into the swimming pool?)
When I co-chaired ConJose, I managed to antagonize a whole lot of people, most of them local to the Bay Area. I think that in a whole bunch of individuals' cases, I had the choice of being liked or of getting the convention done. We couldn't have done it both ways. I put the convention first, and I'm better aware of the consequences than certain people think. While I'm flattered at the respect I've received in worldwide conrunning circles, I also know that I'm all but persona non grata in a number of local circles. As someone who wants to be liked, it hurts me more than you'll ever know that the price of getting the convention done was the friendship of those people.
Here's a quote from the penultimate issue of Emerald City:
I'm not saying we couldn't have another Worldcon in the Bay Area, or that it couldn't be well run. But I think it would have to rely upon "outsiders" -- people not part of the regular Bay Area conrunning circles -- even more so than the previous two did. The only other way to avoid the toxicity that I can see would be to try for one of the existing conventions to try running on their existing management structure, rejecting any outside involvement and just trying to run things at Worldcon scale out of their own resources. Neither alternative sounds very attractive to me.
___________________________
*I realize that this doesn't really answer the question posed. Another indirect answer is, "I know when I'd bid and what I'd do to maximize my chances of winning another bid sometime before 2020." To anyone with an understanding of fannish politics, I should think the answer is pretty obvious, and I leave it as an exercise for the student.
People keep asking me, "When is the Bay Area going to hold another Worldcon?" I keep answering, truthfully, variations of, "I don't think it should until the local environment becomes less toxic."* I don't see a lot of things that make me think the necessary changes have happened yet. Oh, maybe some of them, but the toxic elements are still there. (Incidentally, I don't see anyone else emerging who seems interested in drowning himself in personal debt to do the necessary work. The previous two Bay Area Worldcons came near to financially ruining me and at least one other person. Anyone else want to try carrying that anvil into the swimming pool?)
When I co-chaired ConJose, I managed to antagonize a whole lot of people, most of them local to the Bay Area. I think that in a whole bunch of individuals' cases, I had the choice of being liked or of getting the convention done. We couldn't have done it both ways. I put the convention first, and I'm better aware of the consequences than certain people think. While I'm flattered at the respect I've received in worldwide conrunning circles, I also know that I'm all but persona non grata in a number of local circles. As someone who wants to be liked, it hurts me more than you'll ever know that the price of getting the convention done was the friendship of those people.
Here's a quote from the penultimate issue of Emerald City:
There is, of course, a matter of committee culture here. Interaction’s staff were very good at cross-departmental communication, at least the divisional level which is where I worked. I recall from ConJosé that attempts to comment on what another department was doing were often greeted with fury by the people responsible for that department.I think that's a fair assessment. Had I taken the choice of "not hurting people's feelings," while trying to manage ConJose, then fairly significant pieces of the convention wouldn't have happened at all, or else they would have happened much less well than they did. As it was, it was a pretty near thing, and I'll go to my grave frustrated over the things that went wrong or at least went very mediocre as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not saying we couldn't have another Worldcon in the Bay Area, or that it couldn't be well run. But I think it would have to rely upon "outsiders" -- people not part of the regular Bay Area conrunning circles -- even more so than the previous two did. The only other way to avoid the toxicity that I can see would be to try for one of the existing conventions to try running on their existing management structure, rejecting any outside involvement and just trying to run things at Worldcon scale out of their own resources. Neither alternative sounds very attractive to me.
___________________________
*I realize that this doesn't really answer the question posed. Another indirect answer is, "I know when I'd bid and what I'd do to maximize my chances of winning another bid sometime before 2020." To anyone with an understanding of fannish politics, I should think the answer is pretty obvious, and I leave it as an exercise for the student.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 05:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 07:25 am (UTC)The Bay Area is wonderful, but in includes a whole lot of really insular people who will not or cannot make the substantial investment of time and money to go out there on the bidding trail and convince people that your bid is serious.
And that travel is vital. The Columbus bid, which had decent facilities and an excellent price, was hampered by lack of visibility. The modern campaign requires you to be on the campaign trail at certain spots, or people won't take you seriously. I think some folks think the bid campaigns pay for all of that travel. They don't. Oh, Bay Area in 2002 did pay for a couple of people to travel relatively short distances a couple of times (never me; I figured that people would accuse me of lining my pockets at fandom's expense if I asked), but most of the time it was people who were spending their own money to go to Far Off Places and promote us. I, for instance, flew to Ad Astra in Toronto once to promote San Jose. Now, it was a relatively good deal on Northwest Airlines, but it was still around $500 in air and hotel for a weekend trip to Toronto. They couldn't believe someone would actually travel that far. A lot of people in the Bay Area couldn't believe it, either.
You have to be a little bit unhinged to go bidding, I think.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 08:00 am (UTC)I was even more surprised at the number of first round votes they got, and honestly am still trying to figure out where the heck that number came from. If LACon had been on the East Coast such that a majority of con attendees would've considered Columbus the closest and/or most drivable to bid, I'd at least have a clue, but getting that sort of support at a West Coast Worldcon after their lack of bid campaign? I'm stumped.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 01:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 10:12 pm (UTC)At the cost that Kevin paid, it's hard to justify. Though I would continue to argue that places that are hosting or bidding for a Worldcon are places to find voters.
I was even more surprised at the number of first round votes they [Columbus] got, and honestly am still trying to figure out where the heck that number came from.
Me too. I now think I know much less about bidding than I thought I did. Though I certainly have new opinions about layout of the site selection area. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 02:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 11:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 05:26 am (UTC)Ouch. I thought all the local fannish enmity was reserved for Michael Siladi.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 07:32 am (UTC)I'm still SFSFC Secretary, but that's because I usually turn the meeting minutes around promptly. Last July's meeting is an exception. :(
(In fact, every July's meeting is a challenge, because if I don't do the minutes the same day as the meeting, it's likely that some sort of Worldcon business will get in the way and the next thing you know, it's October and time to send out the November meeting notices and *bang* no minutes.)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 06:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 07:07 am (UTC)Back in 1990-1992, I was co-chair of the Glasgow in 1995 bid, and wound up about USD 10,000 in debt, despite earning good money and having some support from the bid. I don't suppose it's any cheaper now.
You won, they lost
Date: 2006-10-02 12:19 pm (UTC)Re: You won, they lost
Date: 2006-10-02 12:34 pm (UTC)Re: You won, they lost
Date: 2006-10-02 12:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 07:16 am (UTC)Not everyone is likely to be as crazy as I am. But I'm not sure the Bay Area bid would have succeeded if I hadn't done the things I did. Which would have been bad for fandom, as we would have gone to the election with nothing on the ballot except Roswell! 2002 (election in 1999) was the year that the WSFS site selection system nearly collapsed. (That was one of the reasons I supported "no zone" bidding -- I knew there were not enough viable bids under the zonal system, with two-thirds of North America shut out each year.)
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 08:11 am (UTC)So let's say we end up at some point with another three-way race. But instead of Denver-Chicago-Columbus, it's Philadelphia-Chicago-Bay Area (just offhand trying to come up with a "bad" site in each region). An awful lot of potential sites in all three former regions get nuked by the 500 mile radius.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 12:02 pm (UTC)Among other things, it was felt that eg Chicago not knowing whether they could bid for 2011 until 2007 would cut down on the money bids would spend more than 2 years out.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 12:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 02:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 04:12 pm (UTC)As far as the NASFic bid goes, heck you can start now. Send off some e-mails to the people that ran the Worldcon in Baltimore to see if they would help you, or if they might be interested in running a NASFic bid for 2010. There was a hoax bid/party excuse for Bucconeer 2 on the Worldcon bids page, but no e-mail listed.
Balitmore has excellent convention facilities, and a cool city to boot - so why not hold a NASFiC??
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 05:06 pm (UTC)In the case you describe, once one of the three sites was selected, the rest of the continent opens up and you'd have a (relatively) economical two-year bidding campaign.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 02:10 pm (UTC)I liked ConJose
Date: 2006-10-04 12:17 am (UTC)(And thanks for the incidental share-of-a-compliment,
Z
P.S.: Oh, what am I doing here? Wandered in to see if you had a top-level post about the
Re: I liked ConJose
Date: 2006-10-04 12:38 am (UTC)As for BayCon, well, I think we need to see how that develops. It should make Westercon slightly easier, since there will be overlap between the two and the events are of the same general nature and only a few weeks apart.
Re: I liked ConJose
Date: 2006-10-04 12:51 am (UTC)Denver and beyond (WAS) Re: I liked ConJose
Date: 2006-10-04 01:10 am (UTC)People's Republic of Berkeley, repre-zent!
The announcement felt like a reinforcement of our decision to start attending more
Z
P.S.: How do smofs like you two feel about Montreal in 2009?
Re: Denver and beyond (WAS) Re: I liked ConJose
Date: 2006-10-04 01:27 am (UTC)Re: Denver and beyond (WAS) Re: I liked ConJose
Date: 2006-10-04 01:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 06:43 pm (UTC)Feathers will always be ruffled in this kind of situation. How permanently they stay that way depends mostly on the ruffle-ee. I've been on boards for theater groups and Peace Corps alumni groups, both of which feature wall to wall strong-willed, intelligent, independent people (I would guess a con committee would share this trait), and know that a chairperson's people skills can only go so far in mending rifts. You can please some of the people some of the time...
I understand about the out-of-pocket hell, I've been there with a couple of community theater projects. But I am kind of surprised that in this valley a Worldcon was not underwritten by one or several corporations. How naive am I being?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 06:59 pm (UTC)And it's precisely that "out-of-pocket hell" that makes me so furious when I hear people casually assuming that of course conrunners are lining their pockets at fannish expense. I want to put those people in my shoes for a while, or maybe transfer my credit-card balances to them, and see what they say.
A fair bit, I think, with no offense intended. No Worldcon in North America has been "underwritten" in the sense of having substantial portions of its expenses covered by a corporate sponsor. The two Glasgow Worldcons had a form of sponsorship called "subvention," whereby the local equivalent of the Convention & Visitors Bureau granted the convention enough money to where the cost of running the con came down to approximately what it would have cost in the USA -- things cost a lot more in Europe -- but that hardly matters much.
To be "underwritten by one or several corporations," someone would have to know how to apply for the corporate sponsorship. I sure don't know how to do it. Nobody in our organization did. People talk a lot about sponsorships, but we don't have too many people who are any good at going out and getting enough sponsorship to make a huge difference. Oh, you get bits and pieces here and there, and they do help, but you'd need a six-figure sum to make a big impact.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 09:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 10:31 pm (UTC)There was a fairly notorious case -- the 1987 Worldcon in Brighton -- where the convention accepted a lot of (badly needed) sponsorship from Bridge Publications. This led to a lot of bad feeling. When I was organizing Interaction's major events, we went after a bunch of sponsorship, but (for instance) we split what would have been the highest-profile sponsorship (two vertical banners hanging over the stage with the sponsor logos) into sixths, priced at GBP1000 each. Now that's less than USD2,000 each, and yet we had only one taker -- not enough to justify creating the banners in the first place.
People are somewhat afraid that we'd end up holding the L. RON HUBBARD WRITERS OF THE FUTURE hugo awards CEREMONY.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-02 07:20 pm (UTC)1. Because fandom is a social group that corporations do not like to be associated with; and
2. Because at a mere 5000 people, Worldcon is much to small for large corporations to bother with.
Things would have been a bit easier in the Bay Area, because people here don't immediately get a bad case of fan cooties immediately you mention the term "science fiction", but size would have been an issue. In the UK there were companies who sold SF product to hard core fans who were not interested in Worldcon because the convention was too small and not open to the general public.
The conclusion that I have come to is that Worldcon won't be able to attract serious sponsors unless it works hard to promote itself, which it can best do by promoting its most valuable asset, the Hugo Awards.
- Cheryl
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 12:28 am (UTC)And rather than wander off into a fit of reminiscence, I shall now wander off and do something else for a while ....