| |
In lugnet.events.brickswest, Dave Johann wrote:
> In lugnet.events.brickswest, David Laswell wrote:
> >
> > I also don't think the idea of a roving major con
> > is going to fly very well. I expect what will happen is that people will stop
> > travelling to it unless it's closer to where they live, and what you'll
> > basically end up with is a staggered series of isolated mini-cons that show up
> > every couple of years and don't have a lot of cross-attendance.
>
> Now we're on the same page. I have no problem with a roving con, but if it's
> roving over an area more than 1000 miles wide, I see exactly what you're talking
> about.
Starting with a disclaimer--I've never been to a convention (heck, I rarely get
to a LUG meeting) and between job and family obligations probably won't be
running off to one soon, so my opinion is pretty disinterested here.
That aside, I'm a chemist, and my professional organization (the American
Chemical Society) has two national meetings a year. They generally alternate
from east to west coast, and they alternate among locations with large
populations of chemists (many universities and industries), but also areas that
are tourist-friendly. So in the west they pretty much alternate between SF,
Anaheim, SD, Los Vegas, occasionally up by Seattle. In the east they rotate
between NY, Boston, Washington, Orlando. Occasionally a central location like
Chicago, New Orleans, or Denver is in there. This rotation of location doesn't
lead to low attendance--of course, there is a much larger base of participants,
and it also doesn't conflict with our jobs (as presenting at a national meeting
is seen as a good thing by universities and chemical industry). There are also
loads of smaller meetings held here and there either based on a specific region,
or a specific field of chemistry.
Perhaps it would be good if all of the people involved in organizing these
different conventions (BF, BW, NWBrickCon)sat down and came up with some larger
scheme. I don't know which people this involves so I don't know what sort of
personality clashes this might entail. Anyway, rotating might be a good thing.
There are people who are going to travel across country just to go to one of
these, so they'll be there whereever it is. OTOH, there are a lot of people who
might go to a con, but if it's multiple states away they won't. Moving from
place to place might attract new faces. If things were to move, locations
should consider:
convention space, hotel etc costs
tourist-friendly environment (are there other tourism draws like Disney or NYC
etc)
LEGO-specific draws (Legoland, Imagination Centers, Mall of America, etc)
local LUG/LTC involvement
It does seem like having two cons close to eachother next year might end up
hurting attendance at both, but I do see the advantage if there is free
convention space.
Oh, one thing about con proliferation. Will TLC participate in all of them?
One of the draws of a con (IMO, but as noted above I haven't been to them) is
the Q&A session with LEGO representatives, generally ending in the revelation of
some new cool set. I know I always read all of the transcripts from those
(Thanks, Larry). So one thing that would work against an explosion of mini-cons
would be a lack of TLC involvement.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
