Worldcon Size Dilemma

[kevin_standlee]

There are ways to make Worldcons less expensive and to make them have more "buzz" in the sense of making them much more crowded. Because Worldcons jumped up a size quanta, we are now too small for the pieces of convention centers we're obliged to rent. Part of this is because we really don't want to have to turn people away from the most-popular events. We could get away from that. If we were willing to accept, for instance, that not every member who wants to attend the Hugo Awards or the Masquerade will be guaranteed a seat, and if we were willing to accept a much higher level of crowding than I think most members would enjoy, we could make Worldcons more affordable by shoehorning too-large events into too-small-but-cheaper space. That's the gist of what I said in my latest reply to this discussion, in reply to George R.R. Martin's contention that Worldcons could easily fit back into cheap hotel space.

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Don't expect Montreal to be inexpensive. After all, it's a top-tier city, and the savings that Americans have previously come to expect when visiting Canada -- effectively a 20% discount -- have vanished with the fall of the American dollar. OTOH, your hotel tax is effectively zero, because you can get it refunded (in USD, drawn on a US bank; no tricks, and I've done it myself before, so I know it works).

The key issue is that the people deciding where to hold Worldcons are the people who are least sensitive to price. People who are sensitive to price are unlikely to vote in a contested election because they perceive that they are potentially "throwing their money away" if the bid they prefer doesn't win. People like me, who vote every year, never make that sort of calculation.

[bosswriter.livejournal.com]

I would agree about the people voting on the Worldcon, but that tells me that the attendees may not understand completely that no matter which site wins, voting gives you a supporting membership and if your site wins you pay the same to upgrade anyway (unless you pre-supported which if you bother to do that you are probably a regular attender).

Maybe a campaign to explain that better at the convention would help. Also has there been any thought to eliminating the fee to vote and allow all paid members to vote? I know that limits the upfront cash for the winning site but possibly there are other ways to make that up.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

...the attendees may not understand completely that no matter which site wins, voting gives you a supporting membership....

I think they mostly know. I also think that they don't care. They don't perceive any value in buying a membership of any sort to a convention they couldn't conceive of ever attending. Voting rights and publications have zero value to them; they would never vote in the Hugo Awards, anyway. So they won't pay.

has there been any thought to eliminating the fee to vote and allow all paid members to vote? I know that limits the upfront cash for the winning site but possibly there are other ways to make that up.

You sometimes hear this, but there's a sound constitutional reason for it. Remember that it isn't really a voting fee. It's an "Advance Supporting Membership." You're buying a supporting membership in the Now+2 Worldcon, and in consideration of that purchase, you get the right to participate in the process of choosing where to hold that Worldcon. From a constitutional point of view, we don't want people voting who aren't willing to consider WSFS as a whole when they make their decision. That's why we also put an 800 km/500 mi exclusion zone around the current Worldcon -- this reduces the effect of "I'll vote for it because it's close, not because it's any good."

And as far as eliminating a Worldcon's initial cash -- well, I suppose they could immediately start charging even more money for memberships, but that just exacerbates the problem of driving people away due to cost, I think.