Subject:
|
Re: BrickFest registration fees (was: LEGO Adult Fan Convention at Legoland California?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.events, lugnet.events.brickfest
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:26:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.events, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.events, Todd Thuma wrote:
| |
After lamblasting Anthony for his estimate of time, I would like to support
him a little on his arguement here. I think it is a little disengenous for
an organizer not to be upfront with where the money will go if there is a
profit left over.
|
Why? Still not following the logic. As an attendee, I paid my money and
received value, and my hobby is being furthered by positive public attention.
As a volunteer, I get warm fuzzies and the adoration of my peers for
participating in such a cool event. What else is there? I’m not trying to be
obtuse, but I still haven’t really seen any reason for financial disclosure
more compelling than, “Because I want to know” or (worse) “Because I’m
entitled to know.”
|
You don’t think there’s anything wrong with acting like a nonprofit but
operating as a private, for-profit enterprise? The IRS would like to have a
stern talk with you.
Not that BF has been pretending to be a nonprofit, but I don’t think the
organizers have made it sufficiently clear that BF is operated as a business
which may or may not be (we don’t know) be making a profit for its owners. If
it’s a business, then you’re right, we aren’t entitled to see the books - but we
are entitled to know upfront that we are giving our time and money to a
business.
| |
| |
I agree with others that have stipulated that they would attend even if a
Joe or Christina made money from the event. For my sensibilities, I want to
know that up front. I would rather not learn later that they had taken the
money and run with it rather than paying the bills, as has happened before
such as BricksWest. I would rather know that they intend to use the money
for good, not evil.
|
Leaving aside the comparisons between petty thievery and a successful,
ongoing event...
Intentions notwithstanding, as long as the event was perceived by those
attending (volunteers and regular attendees and public) as a success, the
perception of any leftover funds being used for good vs. evil is moot. This
is based on a purely theoretical level, one that I think is being mixed with
a more pragmatic concern, which is, Will the event continue? And will it be
better next year for last year’s success?
|
As a customer, I’m allowed to ask why a product costs as much as it does.
Businesses have no obligation to provide me with that information, but they
often do. Businesses will often make an effort to explain price increases by
citing increased supply costs or taxes, in an effort to let the consumer know
they aren’t just being gouged. And even privately held businesses (like TLG)
annonuce profits and losses - partly to reassure customers.
| |
If a given event is successful, more people will want to come to the next.
If the event had extra funds after all bills were paid, it’s in the best
interest of the organizers to entice volunteers to help again in future
events - by helping offset costs, providing special bonuses, etc.
If the
volunteers are happy, they’ll let people know they’re happy, and will
consider coming back to help again next year.
If the organizer is able to be
reimbursed for some of the time/materials they spent in getting things going,
they’ll be more likely to want to organize in the future.
If the audience
perceives the event as being successful (including financially), it’s likely
they’ll consider attending another event.
If the organizer wants it to be a successful event, they’re likely to be
responsible with resources to ensure future successes.
|
Very true. But what if they don’t want to run BF anymore? What if they need
money for hospital bills? What if they default on their mortgage or aren’t
paying their child support or their taxes? Neither the bank nor the taxman is
going to be swayed by “But, but... that money is for a LEGO convention!”
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
102 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
