There's an argument been made (by Mike Resnick) that the number of non-US Worldcons is hurting Worldcon, because the largest number of potential attendees are in the USA, and with Worldcons going here and there (and not to large US cities), the core audience has simply forgotten the convention exists. (Considering the number of fans I meet at every convention where I sit at a table who have never heard of Worldcon, there may be merit to this argument.)
But let's see what happens if you deliberately aim your Worldcon at a hotel and not a convention center. Okay, your costs go down by at least a quarter of a million dollars. (That's how much the San Jose Convention Center cost to rent and to decorate in 2002.) That means you can significantly reduce your membership cost. That probably means demand will shoot up because it's more affordable. Except that because you're no longer in a building big enough to hold your convention, you either will suffer enormous overcrowding (making people very unhappy with you) or else you'll have to impose a membership cap, and that just means the actual cost of the memberships will go up anyway as people will re-sell their memberships on the secondary market.
I don't really see a good way out of this. Hotels are not infinitely expandable. Sure, we could hold conventions of up to maybe 2,000 people in hotels we have around here in the Bay Area (the Fairmont and the Doubletree immediately spring to mind, and there are others). But 5,000? The number of hotels in the USA that can host such an event without a convention center can be counted on not more than two hands. And such facilities likely would impose high fixed costs equivalent to a convention center; that was our experience negotiating with the San Francisco Marriott, which could probably hold 5K with some noticeable crowding, but wanted about a half-million in revenue guarantees — worse than renting Moscone Center!
So what should we do? Impose a 2,000-person membership cap on Worldcon the way World Fantasy has a more or less 800-person cap (with holes in it)? That would certainly push Worldcon down the road of being a "business literary conference," which someone at Aussiecon 4 told me she assumed Worldcon was, much to my surprise.
no subject
But let's see what happens if you deliberately aim your Worldcon at a hotel and not a convention center. Okay, your costs go down by at least a quarter of a million dollars. (That's how much the San Jose Convention Center cost to rent and to decorate in 2002.) That means you can significantly reduce your membership cost. That probably means demand will shoot up because it's more affordable. Except that because you're no longer in a building big enough to hold your convention, you either will suffer enormous overcrowding (making people very unhappy with you) or else you'll have to impose a membership cap, and that just means the actual cost of the memberships will go up anyway as people will re-sell their memberships on the secondary market.
I don't really see a good way out of this. Hotels are not infinitely expandable. Sure, we could hold conventions of up to maybe 2,000 people in hotels we have around here in the Bay Area (the Fairmont and the Doubletree immediately spring to mind, and there are others). But 5,000? The number of hotels in the USA that can host such an event without a convention center can be counted on not more than two hands. And such facilities likely would impose high fixed costs equivalent to a convention center; that was our experience negotiating with the San Francisco Marriott, which could probably hold 5K with some noticeable crowding, but wanted about a half-million in revenue guarantees — worse than renting Moscone Center!
So what should we do? Impose a 2,000-person membership cap on Worldcon the way World Fantasy has a more or less 800-person cap (with holes in it)? That would certainly push Worldcon down the road of being a "business literary conference," which someone at Aussiecon 4 told me she assumed Worldcon was, much to my surprise.