Subject:
|
Re: BrickFest(TM) PDX 2004 Announcement
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.events
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:03:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1295 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: BrickFest(TM) PDX 2004 Announcement
|
| (...) 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... (...) I have a little bit of practical experience (...) (21 years ago, 13-Aug-03, to lugnet.events)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: BrickFest(TM) PDX 2004 Announcement
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 12-Aug-03, to lugnet.events)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
