That's not a rhetorical question. What does any group of big city US convention runners get out of running a Worldcon that they wouldn't get by putting that energy into their local convention? And is it worth the enormous expense and logistical complexity that comes from having to use a convention center, and the loss of organizational (and especially budgeting) continuity they currently enjoy?
I see what the overseas conrunners get: access to attendees, participants, and organizers who would otherwise be unavailable. Maybe Denver and Reno and Texas get this too. And I see how even though there are far more interesting sercon conventions within an easy drive of Chicago, someone there might want to do it anyway, because they have a hotel that's big enough without a convention center so the cost is small. But the real loci of younger convention runners, places like Minneapolis and Boston and St Louis, lack such hotels, and stand to gain nothing by hanging a Worldcon tag on their efforts. As anyone who went to Tuckercon will be quite aware.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
why bother?
Date: 2011-03-28 03:20 pm (UTC)I see what the overseas conrunners get: access to attendees, participants, and organizers who would otherwise be unavailable. Maybe Denver and Reno and Texas get this too. And I see how even though there are far more interesting sercon conventions within an easy drive of Chicago, someone there might want to do it anyway, because they have a hotel that's big enough without a convention center so the cost is small. But the real loci of younger convention runners, places like Minneapolis and Boston and St Louis, lack such hotels, and stand to gain nothing by hanging a Worldcon tag on their efforts. As anyone who went to Tuckercon will be quite aware.