Site Selection Misconceptions

[kevin_standlee]

My Google Alerts turned up this blog post that included this misconception about where Worldcons are held:

Every other year, WorldCon alternates between a U.S. and an international location.

That's not true, of course, but as I reviewed in my head the locations of recent Worldcons, I realized that if you've only come to the field after 2001, you might think so. Look at where the Worldcons 2002-onward have been or will be:

2002: San Jose
2003: Toronto
2004: Boston
2005: Glasgow
2006: Anaheim
2007: Yokohama
2008: Denver

Now if you believe in patterns predicting the future, this means good things for the Montreal in 2009 Worldcon bid. OTOH, what about the Australia in 2010 bid? They don't have any opposition, and are unlikely to do so.

If Montreal wins for 2009 and (as seems almost 100% certain) Australia wins for 2010, it will be only the second time in the history of the Worldcon that there have been two consecutive non-US sites. (The only time to date was 1994 Winnipeg and 1995 Glasgow.) And it will be the first time ever that there will be no seated Worldcons in the USA, since in the 1994-96 period we selected Worldcons three years in advance, not two.

I guess this shows that the convention is indeed more global than it once was, although I suppose we'll be able to find detractors who say that it's bad that it's still held in the USA so often. When we were running up to the 2002 Worldcon in San Jose, I and Tom Whitmore did an interview with a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News who had done his research and knew something about fandom -- he was wearing a Green Lantern signet ring! -- but said, approximately, "How can you call it a 'world' convention when most of them have been held in the USA."

I replied that while he'd obviously looked at the Long List of Worldcons, it wasn't really fair to look at the entire (at that time) sixty-year history of the convention, but that he should look at the past twenty years instead to see how things were trending.

Since I started attending Worldcons in 1984, there have been or will be (through 2008) Worldcons in these countries:

USA: 16
UK: 3
Canada: 2
Australia: 2
Netherlands: 1
Japan: 1

On the average, two-thirds of Worldcons held after 1983 have been in the USA; however, as I noted above, the percentage has been 50% since 2002.

Will this trend (generally, for more non-US Worldcons) continue? I don't think so. I think it more likely to level out at roughly 3/5 US Worldcons; however, don't try holding me to that prediction for any given five consecutive Worldcons.

Oh, I did go and post a comment to that blog correcting the misconception, as well as clarifying that NASFiC can be held outside the USA (although it never has been).

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I would not be so quick to write off the US East Coast. After all, the 2004 Worldcon was in Boston, and there continue to be discussions of a DC-area Worldcon bid (hamstrung by lack of facilities for now). And I have not heard of facility costs being markedly different in the east than in the rest of the country.

What I do think is that the old zone system allowed people to be a little bit lazy. Two-thirds of North America were disqualified every year, which made it easier for the one-third that was eligible. Now, with most sites eligible every year, you have to work harder on your bid because you're more likely to see competition from somewhere, not less as many people were predicting when we adopted "no-zone."

[redneckotaku.livejournal.com]

The difference is in convention hotels. You can't get the $119 or less deals for hotels that you can from a hotel in Anaheim or Denver. The cost for a hotel for Otakon in Baltimore, MD for two nights can be about the same as four nights in a hotel in San Diego. That is why I don't think we are going to see a DC bid. A DC hotel attached to a convention center would cost probably $179 a night (same as what Anime Boston gets). I wish someone would compete against Australia for 2010. Australian airfares are worst than Yokohama airfares.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

And we're not going to get that $119 from Denver, either. The rates will be more like what you're seeing with Anime Boston. The rates in Anaheim were amazingly low -- I doubt we'll ever see the like of them ever again.

The reason nobody will bid against Australia is that they don't want to lose, and most of SMOFdom wants Australia to win. It's traditional, you know: Australia gets a free pass.

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

There was a Sydney in '91 bid that was on the ballot. (See George Flynn's article.) But there wasn't much of a campaign and they didn't get a "free pass."

BTW, if you feel like writing another Appendix with votes since that article, we'll post in on the NESFA website (if the data is still available.)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I didn't take the Sydney in '91 bid seriously, and I don't think anyone else did, either. The point is that any serious bid -- and just filing papers is clearly not enough to be serious -- for Australia seems to be given a lot of slack from SMOFdom.

Of course, if the existing Australia 2010 bid hadn't done at least a minimal amount of effort to keep their name before the electorate, then someone would have stepped up with a rival bid lest we end up with no Worldcon; however, as long as Australia 2010 remains on their current course, I expect them to remain uncontested.

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

198 people voted for Sydney, so it is probable that some people took it seriously.

But my point is that no bid/city/country should be considered to be given a "free pass." If a group wants a Worldcon, they need to prove it to the voters.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Heck, almost that many voted for Roswell!

I don't mean to say I disagree with you. I'm saying what I perceive the political landscape to be.