| |
In lugnet.events, Steve Barile wrote:
> BrickFest(TM) PDX 2004
>
> I would like to announce plans for the 2004 west coast LEGO festival. It will be
> held February 13th-15th, 2004 at the OR Convention Center (OCC) located in
> Portland, OR. The fest will be similar in format to the past events including:
> speeches, displays, sessions, building challenges / competitions etc. And with
> exactly the same goals: fostering community, putting names to faces, and fun,
> fun, fun!
Steve,
First and foremost, let me wish you luck with this event, and let me also thank
you for taking this on - I know it is in no way a small task. You should be
applauded for taking this on. But at the same time I do have concerns about this
event. Please (everybody) understand I am in no way trying to start anything, or
tell you that you can't have this event - its not my place in any way to take
that stance, and thats not what I am trying to say in any way. I also understand
this is a different event than what was BW. I do have concerns, that in no way
means I am upset or angry about this event. So I ask the people who are going to
try to spin words to stop before they start (or in some csaes stop before the
keep doing it).
Now, my biggest concern is the name for the event. I understand and agree why
the BW name has to be dropped. But I think one of the most important things for
a con is name recognition. Now, I know that will be impossible for a con to have
in its first year unless it uses a pre-established con name. And I see thats the
path you chose to take - to use a pre-established name. But that brings me
concern for 2 reasons. First, you have chosen to have this event move around
from city to city. Now this means the name will not be the same next year - thus
losing any and all name recognition that you would have built up with your first
fest. Second, the choice to use the Brickfest name. I went and re-read the mess
that Scott Costello referred to in his post (see
http://news.lugnet.com/events/brickswest/?n=760 ) this happened about the time
of late 2001 - if you wish you can start here and work back:
http://news.lugnet.com/events/?n=*956,-100&v=b One of the main points that was
brought up and that I agree with is Brickfest is Brickfest. This event will not
be Brickfest. Yes, it may be shaped after BrickFest, but alas all Lego cons are
based on BrickFest for the simple fact there is only so much that can be done at
a Lego fest. I think if you are really trying to create a con that will garner
interest from the public then using a name that will have to change from year to
year is a bad idea, and who is to say that BrickFest will let this event to
continue to use its name in the future? I am honestly surprised they agreed to
its use this time around. And even if they do let it be used in the future the
other part of the name will have to change, as PDX is a Portland thing and would
not work outside of Portland.
Having a set name has many advantages. When people say "BrickFest" they think of
the event that just took place in DC, when you say "BricksWest" people think of
the now expired event by LLCA. IMHO thats what your rotating event needs - a
solid name that remains the same year after year despite where it is held. IMHO
as soon as you make the event a rotating event that only greatens the need for a
solid non-changing name.
Second, the location. I understand that you would like this to be a rotating
event. And I understand the space where it is going to be held this year was
free. But I do not understand the need for 2 cons in the Pacific North West.
Yes, the idea of a rotating West Coast event was talked about at BricksWest, but
AFIK that was before the Pacific North West had their own con. I truly have a
fear that the 2 *separate* cons that close to will only dilute each other. Some
people may not feel that way, or admit to feeling that way in public - but it is
something I think needs to be taken into consideration. I think the correct
choice for a rotating con for the West Coast would have been kept in California.
This has nothing to do with the fact that I live in California - what it DOES
have to do with is NWBrick Con. I think out of respect for the people who put on
NWBrick Con we need to give them the North West, and this event should have been
focused in the South West. I think the idea of having it rotate between San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and San Diego (not Carlsbad, but San Diego) is
a great idea. It not only gives NWBrick Con their room, but also respects them
as an event. And the areas I just mentioned are strong enough to support a con
and also have many, many things for the family members to do while the AFOL of
the family is at the con – it can truly be made a real vacation by those who
choose to do so.
You also touched on this idea: “By moving the festival we believe that it will
maximize attendance by allowing LEGO enthusiasts that live with in driving
distance to participate more easily” But IMHO Portland is not really within
driving distance for the people in Southern California – the same people who
find Seattle within driving distance will really be the main people who find
Portland within driving distance, so there is no added benefit for the Southern
California people that I can see.
And the answer 'because it is a rotating con' does not really answer why The
Pacific North West needs 2 cons while the South West is left without any - and I
also know I am not 'owed' an answer, I am not really asking for an answer.. just
saying I do not understand why.
Again, let me state I am not trying to get anybody to change anything, I am not
making any demands. I am not asking or demanding any actions or reactions from
anybody in any way - I am voicing my concerns - and I do that as a concerned
AFOL who has been strongly effected by the loss of BW and a person who does have
a vested interest in having a successful West Coast con. I want the West Coast
event to truly rock.
Mark P
http://www.landofbricks.com
|
|
| |
Mark P wrote:
> Having a set name has many advantages. When people say "BrickFest" they think of
> the event that just took place in DC, when you say "BricksWest" people think of
> the now expired event by LLCA. IMHO thats what your rotating event needs - a
> solid name that remains the same year after year despite where it is held. IMHO
> as soon as you make the event a rotating event that only greatens the need for a
> solid non-changing name.
Not entirely true. I think it would be nice to come up with a good
overall name for the rotating con, but I would submit Worldcon as
something that has a different name each year. In fact, Worldcon really
isn't the official constant name (that's WOrld Science Fiction
Convention). True, fans talk about going to Worldcon each year, however,
each year it has a more prominent name, that happens to be local. For
example, Noreascon is the name it has taken on for Boston appearances
(the 4th such appearance coming next year). It has also had names such
as Chicon and Aussiecon.
> Second, the location. I understand that you would like this to be a rotating
> event. And I understand the space where it is going to be held this year was
> free. But I do not understand the need for 2 cons in the Pacific North West.
I think there may be a separate note pointing out that the space is free
(it isn't, it's being paid for with blood, sweat, and Rears [as in
Jeremy Rears who put in most of the effort to build the model which is
being used to "pay" for the space]...).
There is some validity to the question about why 2 cons in the PNW. One
thing is that so far I think NW Brick Con is a much more different event
from BricksWest and BrickFest. It's much more of a regional event (sure,
a few people did fly in, but very few in comparison to BW and BF). Also,
last year, it was primarily a public show. I understand it will be
different this year, but it still has a very different format.
For those of us in the PNW, I suspect we would be happy for most of the
rotations to occur outside of the PNW. We're doing the first rotation
largely because we read the situation with BW and took action. Had we
stumbled upon a hint of other activity in this area (we talked to enough
of the people involved in aspects of BW that we should have stumbled
upon such a hint), we would have backed off. The simple fact is that to
be ready for an event in February, planning must start in July.
> Yes, the idea of a rotating West Coast event was talked about at BricksWest, but
> AFIK that was before the Pacific North West had their own con. I truly have a
> fear that the 2 *separate* cons that close to will only dilute each other. Some
> people may not feel that way, or admit to feeling that way in public - but it is
> something I think needs to be taken into consideration. I think the correct
> choice for a rotating con for the West Coast would have been kept in California.
> This has nothing to do with the fact that I live in California - what it DOES
> have to do with is NWBrick Con. I think out of respect for the people who put on
> NWBrick Con we need to give them the North West, and this event should have been
> focused in the South West. I think the idea of having it rotate between San
> Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and San Diego (not Carlsbad, but San Diego) is
> a great idea. It not only gives NWBrick Con their room, but also respects them
> as an event. And the areas I just mentioned are strong enough to support a con
> and also have many, many things for the family members to do while the AFOL of
> the family is at the con – it can truly be made a real vacation by those who
> choose to do so.
The organizers of NW Brick Con were consulted. I agree there is some
risk of dilution. But then, folks were concerned there would be dilution
of BrickFest by starting the first BricksWest (the result - BF 2002 was
larger than BF 2001...doesn't sound like dilution to me). Clearly there
is more risk with two cons being so close together in location, but on
the other hand, for a roving con to be really succesefull, it has to be
able to draw most of it's attendance from non-locals. If BrickFest PDX
can do that, then it will be a strong proof of concept.
Back to the "free" space. Here is where there is a tremendous advantage
to our "bid". Because we are not paying for the space with attendance
dollars, BF PDX has very low fixed costs, and thus can take a larger
risk. Of course we have to be careful of setting a standard that is hard
to meet. Do we use the attendance dollars to pay for goodies that won't
be as easy for the next con to pay for if they have to use attendance
dollars for space? Do we reduce the attendance fee, and then dissapoint
people next year when the fee goes up because attendance dollars are
needed to pay for space? These are questions the BF PDX organizing
committee will have to answer for itself (and then the rest of you will
judge, with your comments, and attendance).
> Again, let me state I am not trying to get anybody to change anything, I am not
> making any demands. I am not asking or demanding any actions or reactions from
> anybody in any way - I am voicing my concerns - and I do that as a concerned
> AFOL who has been strongly effected by the loss of BW and a person who does have
> a vested interest in having a successful West Coast con. I want the West Coast
> event to truly rock.
Your last sentence is a little confusing in light of the concern about
two cons in the PNW. We already have two West Coast events. If you think
there is a "The West Coast Event" then it is reasonable for that event
to rotate amongst the entire West Coast. On the other hand, hopefully
you meant "I want the West Coast events to truly rock."
I hope everyone can try and see past hard feelings and look to see how
we can all help each other promote the best events possible. I want to
see more and more events all over.
I'd also like to point to Mark's comments about NWBC's public component
as a recruiting tool. Perhaps we should be solving our low potential
audience problems by really reaching outside our community and really
trying to bring in everyone.
Frank
|
|
| |
Hi Mark,
Thanks for summarizing your concerns! I got thru most of the old thread and it
started to hurt my head! :)
Since most of these decisions where made by many people I'll use the word we.
But please everyone don't misunderstand that "we" equates to a closed committee
etc. The initial group of people that I have been talking with was who I thought
to be the very people needed on board to have the collective will to assert this
kind of event. Not to mention that "we" will need all the help we can get!
Name: The name BrickFest has deep meaning to people and we hoped that using it
would assure people that we are serious and have the same goals as the BrickFest
in DC. I guess we're guiltily of thinking big too. Who knows how this will all
work out in the future, BrickFest might move all over North America one day,
like NMRA or GATS or countless other shows. In fact the name and what it stands
for (aka brand recognition) is what assures people of quality no matter where it
is. At this point I start feeling a bit uncomfortable because it's not my name,
and really a BrickEvent's rep should talk about the future of BrickFest. None of
us can predict the future, so we do the best we can with what we have to work
with. Who would have predicted 250 people from all over the world at BrickFest,
4 year ago?
PDX is the Portland international airport designator was suffixed so that it
augmented the name BrickFest; BrickFest SFO, BrickFest LAX, BrickFest SEA,
BrickFest XYZ... This way where ever it goes this kind of nomenclature could be
used. PDX is actually used quite a bit around town, that's how I came up with
it. In my last post I have a disclaimer that the "name use" is year-to-year,
again it's not my name to say. And if it was, I would want to be assured that
any new coordinators would uphold its brand equity.
NW Brick Con: Great point, in my last post I have Mark (and Dan Parker) listed
as people who I have contacted. In fact the minute after the idea of having it
in PDX, I immediately thought about Mark (NW Brick Con) and how it might impact
them. Mark and I had a great conversation and he is fine with BrickFest PDX.
Again I can't talk for Mark, but if I recall correctly in one of our
conversations there was the idea of somewhere far down the road there could be a
convergence. I also know that this year's NW BrickCon is alive and well (Did I
hear some say, "SPACE!")! I do know that all the event coordinators that I have
spoken with have a kinship as opposed to adversary.
Maximize attendance: I think my last post addresses this well. It's not about
PDX and So-Cal, it is about attracting the maximum number of people and exposing
them to something they can't live without the following year regardless of where
they are! In fact I've heard that there is a caravan forming right now somewhere
around Carlsbad, hooking up with some more in LA, and even more in SFO...,
honestly people have sent me mail saying they are driving up and wanting car
pool info etc...
Mark, thanks for voicing your concerns it made me take the time to better
explain some more details I might have missed. Hope to see you in PDX!
SteveB
In lugnet.events, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.events, Steve Barile wrote:
>
> > BrickFest(TM) PDX 2004
> >
> > I would like to announce plans for the 2004 west coast LEGO festival. It will be
> > held February 13th-15th, 2004 at the OR Convention Center (OCC) located in
> > Portland, OR. The fest will be similar in format to the past events including:
> > speeches, displays, sessions, building challenges / competitions etc. And with
> > exactly the same goals: fostering community, putting names to faces, and fun,
> > fun, fun!
>
> Steve,
>
> First and foremost, let me wish you luck with this event, and let me also thank
> you for taking this on - I know it is in no way a small task. You should be
> applauded for taking this on. But at the same time I do have concerns about this
> event. Please (everybody) understand I am in no way trying to start anything, or
> tell you that you can't have this event - its not my place in any way to take
> that stance, and thats not what I am trying to say in any way. I also understand
> this is a different event than what was BW. I do have concerns, that in no way
> means I am upset or angry about this event. So I ask the people who are going to
> try to spin words to stop before they start (or in some csaes stop before the
> keep doing it).
>
> Now, my biggest concern is the name for the event. I understand and agree why
> the BW name has to be dropped. But I think one of the most important things for
> a con is name recognition. Now, I know that will be impossible for a con to have
> in its first year unless it uses a pre-established con name. And I see thats the
> path you chose to take - to use a pre-established name. But that brings me
> concern for 2 reasons. First, you have chosen to have this event move around
> from city to city. Now this means the name will not be the same next year - thus
> losing any and all name recognition that you would have built up with your first
> fest. Second, the choice to use the Brickfest name. I went and re-read the mess
> that Scott Costello referred to in his post (see
> http://news.lugnet.com/events/brickswest/?n=760 ) this happened about the time
> of late 2001 - if you wish you can start here and work back:
> http://news.lugnet.com/events/?n=*956,-100&v=b One of the main points that was
> brought up and that I agree with is Brickfest is Brickfest. This event will not
> be Brickfest. Yes, it may be shaped after BrickFest, but alas all Lego cons are
> based on BrickFest for the simple fact there is only so much that can be done at
> a Lego fest. I think if you are really trying to create a con that will garner
> interest from the public then using a name that will have to change from year to
> year is a bad idea, and who is to say that BrickFest will let this event to
> continue to use its name in the future? I am honestly surprised they agreed to
> its use this time around. And even if they do let it be used in the future the
> other part of the name will have to change, as PDX is a Portland thing and would
> not work outside of Portland.
>
> Having a set name has many advantages. When people say "BrickFest" they think of
> the event that just took place in DC, when you say "BricksWest" people think of
> the now expired event by LLCA. IMHO thats what your rotating event needs - a
> solid name that remains the same year after year despite where it is held. IMHO
> as soon as you make the event a rotating event that only greatens the need for a
> solid non-changing name.
>
>
> Second, the location. I understand that you would like this to be a rotating
> event. And I understand the space where it is going to be held this year was
> free. But I do not understand the need for 2 cons in the Pacific North West.
> Yes, the idea of a rotating West Coast event was talked about at BricksWest, but
> AFIK that was before the Pacific North West had their own con. I truly have a
> fear that the 2 *separate* cons that close to will only dilute each other. Some
> people may not feel that way, or admit to feeling that way in public - but it is
> something I think needs to be taken into consideration. I think the correct
> choice for a rotating con for the West Coast would have been kept in California.
> This has nothing to do with the fact that I live in California - what it DOES
> have to do with is NWBrick Con. I think out of respect for the people who put on
> NWBrick Con we need to give them the North West, and this event should have been
> focused in the South West. I think the idea of having it rotate between San
> Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and San Diego (not Carlsbad, but San Diego) is
> a great idea. It not only gives NWBrick Con their room, but also respects them
> as an event. And the areas I just mentioned are strong enough to support a con
> and also have many, many things for the family members to do while the AFOL of
> the family is at the con – it can truly be made a real vacation by those who
> choose to do so.
>
> You also touched on this idea: “By moving the festival we believe that it will
> maximize attendance by allowing LEGO enthusiasts that live with in driving
> distance to participate more easily” But IMHO Portland is not really within
> driving distance for the people in Southern California – the same people who
> find Seattle within driving distance will really be the main people who find
> Portland within driving distance, so there is no added benefit for the Southern
> California people that I can see.
>
> And the answer 'because it is a rotating con' does not really answer why The
> Pacific North West needs 2 cons while the South West is left without any - and I
> also know I am not 'owed' an answer, I am not really asking for an answer.. just
> saying I do not understand why.
>
> Again, let me state I am not trying to get anybody to change anything, I am not
> making any demands. I am not asking or demanding any actions or reactions from
> anybody in any way - I am voicing my concerns - and I do that as a concerned
> AFOL who has been strongly effected by the loss of BW and a person who does have
> a vested interest in having a successful West Coast con. I want the West Coast
> event to truly rock.
>
> Mark P
> http://www.landofbricks.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.events, Frank Filz wrote:
> I think there may be a separate note pointing out that the space is free
> (it isn't, it's being paid for with blood, sweat, and Rears [as in
> Jeremy Rears who put in most of the effort to build the model which is
> being used to "pay" for the space]...).
Yeah, but that's a much cooler story than "a bunch of people paid entrance
fees", and it should generate some free pre-event news coverage
*coughHINTcough*. And talk about a unique souvenir...
> Back to the "free" space. Here is where there is a tremendous advantage
> to our "bid". Because we are not paying for the space with attendance
> dollars, BF PDX has very low fixed costs, and thus can take a larger
> risk. Of course we have to be careful of setting a standard that is hard
> to meet. Do we use the attendance dollars to pay for goodies that won't
> be as easy for the next con to pay for if they have to use attendance
> dollars for space? Do we reduce the attendance fee, and then dissapoint
> people next year when the fee goes up because attendance dollars are
> needed to pay for space? These are questions the BF PDX organizing
> committee will have to answer for itself (and then the rest of you will
> judge, with your comments, and attendance).
I have a little bit of practical experience on this one. I was involved in
starting up an annual haunted house in the dorm I lived in during college. We
didn't make tons of cash the first year, and we ended up spending all the
proceeds on something for the dorm (a ping-pong table, I believe). The next
year we realized we had to do it again (far too much fun to pass up), but we
basically had to start from the ground up again. No money was saved to bankroll
the next HH. That year we had an expense account set up so the participants
wouldn't have to fund it out of pocket and wait until after the event was done
to get reimbursed. What this allowed us to do for the third year was pay to
have T-shirts made and delivered in time for the HH (which is a one-night
event), so that everyone who helped run it was able to get a free shirt out of
the deal.
In this case, setting an appropriate door cost would allow you to bankroll
the hall rental fee for the next year (yes, I realize this would produce some
serious financial issues that would have to be resolved well in advance of
BFPDX04), maybe pay for some T-shirts and bricks and things so that (and here's
the important thing) none of the event coordinators have to seek out funding
prior to the event. This is how most major Cons are probably run. The unique
rental agreement involved here just makes it that much easier to get a good
start on this in '04.
> I'd also like to point to Mark's comments about NWBC's public component
> as a recruiting tool. Perhaps we should be solving our low potential
> audience problems by really reaching outside our community and really
> trying to bring in everyone.
Absolutely. I mean, consider how you first heard about LUGNET, BrickFest,
or your local LUG/LTC. I knew _one_ person in college who casually mentioned
LUGNET, BrickBay/Bricklink, and Brickshelf to me about 8 years ago. Outside of
MichLUG meetings, I've never personally met anyone who mentioned ever having
heard of them. We aren't the only FOLs out there (we aren't even the only
AFOLs), and most of them aren't aware of any of this. Hitting the public
consciense in such an impactful way is just what it takes to inspire the next
generation of AFOLs or bring members of the current generation into the group.
A roving Con has the advantage of seeing a new general audience each year, and a
stationary Con has the advantage of annual reinforcement of the "wow" factor for
the local audience.
|
|
| |
Comments added below the selected statement:
In lugnet.events, David Laswell wrote:
>
> In this case, setting an appropriate door cost would allow you to bankroll
> the hall rental fee for the next year (yes, I realize this would produce some
> serious financial issues that would have to be resolved well in advance of
> BFPDX04), maybe pay for some T-shirts and bricks and things so that (and here's
> the important thing) none of the event coordinators have to seek out funding
> prior to the event. This is how most major Cons are probably run. The unique
> rental agreement involved here just makes it that much easier to get a good
> start on this in '04.
David,
I happen to work in a University Conference Center called the Georgia Center for
Continuing Education. We do a lot of conferences here for academic and
non-academic purposes. We serve many state organizations with annual and
quarterly conferences.
I am not certain what experience you have had, but typically conference
facilities are not paid up-front. There are occassionally paid a initial fee
that, depending on the size and nature of the conference, varies on the amount.
For example, the Georgia World Conference Center will charge an initial
commitment fee that will book the dates for the conference and arrange for a
certain amount of space. This fee is sometimes returnable, usually not. If the
conference facility is contracted to perform the registration, then this fee is
substanitally reduced or wavied.
The conference facility is usually paid through the registration fees of the
conference. This can happen at a date after registration is closed before the
convention or it is paid after the convention follwing the rendering of
services. It is highly unusual in the conference facility business to be paid
for services in advance of the services. Most large facilities providing the
registration support use a seperate bank account and will issue the sponsoring
organization a check for the balance of the account following the event. In
essence the organizing body never handles the money and organizing bosy uses and
accounting firm to verify the income/expense statements.
While I think you have a great idea for funding the next conference, I think
past experience has shown that a small group of people and not a single
individual needs to handle the finances. Having a bank account with available
resources over the next several months with thousands of dollars is not
something I would sanction. Especially in light of historic events.
So, I would nix the idea of having a large sum of money out there for the next
convention. A couple bucks seems appropriate.
WAMALUG has demonstrated their education and adultness by practicing sound
fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, BF03 was charged more for the facility
than they have been in the past and the cost may not continue to be competitive
with other options. Also I believe there are plans for George Mason University
to build a parking deck and replace the existing facility with one that was not
built to be a department store.
Respectfully,
Todd
|
|
|
