|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I have keep a running list of attendance for the 802.11/15/18/20/21/22 wireless interims over the last few years (attached). Note that the September count is only pre-registration. We typically get 50-100 walk-ins as well. It does show that if you pick the wrong location (e.g., Australia) attendance suffers. Berlin was a good example of a nNA location that worked. Taiwan in January of 2008 will be a challenge to see if it does attract the Asian members we did not see in Australia (claimed to be an AsiaPAC location). Regards, John On 9/13/07 7:00 PM, "David Bagby" <david.bagby@IEEE.ORG> wrote: > Hi - > > I've been reading a fair amount about how SEC members wish the world were, > but not much discussion about how it is. For me, the recent venue discussion > thread is missing significant points - > > Heinlein may have said it best: > "What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun > wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars > foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the > unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many > decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your > single clue. Get the facts!" > > I'd like to form my opinion re non-NA venues from some facts. I think 802 > has the desired data, let's see what it tells us. > > 1) attendance vs. locations - what is the data? > 802 is an organization that depends on volunteer labor. What are the facts > wrt to attendance at various categories of locations? I don't have the 802 > attendance data or I'd have done the exercise myself. I'd like to see some > simple analysis of 802 attendance data. A starting idea: a simple 2 bar > graph - one bar is average attendance at NA location for some period (say > the most recent 5 years) and the other bar is the average attendance at > non-NA locations for the same period. > > I suspect there is a significant difference between the two bars. Further I > suspect that the NA bar will be the higher one (that's just what my > experience over 17+ years of participation tells me I would expect - but > again, what are the facts?) > > 2) what does this data tell us? > Set aside the discussion of how SEC members "want" 802 to be perceived in > the world (and then asserting that this justifies non-NA venues), and let's > spend a little bit of time considering what the membership is telling us > about what they want for locations. > > The requested data is likely to tell us something significant about what the > aggregate membership is (and has been) willing to support wrt to venue > locations. > > For each session the members have voted with their time and dollars - and I > suspect the reality is that there is a real, significant, manpower cost to > non-NA venues. Take the difference in the bars from the graph, and do the > math - add up the delta man-hours and apply an average burdened manpower > rate (between $200 and 4250/hr the last time I looked) to convert to $ - > this will be a first estimate of a real $ cost from venue dependant manpower > deltas. > > If the membership has been willing to pay the direct costs of non-NA venues > for the time period for which we have data, the bars will be very close in > magnitude. If the bars are not close, that also tells us something. > > 802 offers a product - standards. 802's primary customers for the product > are it's members. The members use the product to create products for their > customers. I suspect we have a case of a company's (802's) customers (802 > members) speaking pretty clearly. > > The venue/price issue has elasticity. I personally suspect that a > significant number of members have been telling the organization that they > are not willing to pay the costs of non-NA venues (the Rome situation would > just another example that corresponds to the data we already have). As the > 802 participation costs go up, attendance goes down. As attendance goes > down, organization productivity also goes down (the work doesn't get done by > people that don't show up). > > Perhaps a bit of consideration is also in order as to why we hold sessions? > When I read comments of the form "I've already been to location XYZ", I have > to wonder: Is the 802 business to produce standards products or to provide > interesting travel locations? > > Now I finally come to the sub-topic in this thread which tipped me into > writing this email... > > When you see people staying elsewhere, they are voting with their wallets. > Personally, I've stayed 99% of the time in the session hotel. That is not > usually the lowest cost option. There are reasons this works for me - it's a > matter of ROI - and the balance that works for me may not be the one that > works for others. > > Attempting to "penalize" attendees by charging them what someone thinks they > "should have paid" had they stayed where "you wanted them to stay" (not > where they wanted to stay) is doomed to failure. You won't get the "extra" > $, you'll just eliminate some more attendees - resulting in even lower > income to 802 for that session. That's the nature of the concept of > elasticity. > > Like it or not, the reality is that 802 simply does not have the ability to > reverse the economic forces in play. Increase the costs of attending (time, > hassle and/or $) and less attend - doesn't matter how you allocate the $ > between hotel, reg fess etc. > > 802 doesn't have to like the facts, The facts are simply what they are - and > the facts don't care if they are liked. But.... IMHO 802 management would > be wise to pay attention to what the data says. > > Personally, I think the best business decision is to do what maximizes the > productivity of the volunteer labor pool that creates the 802 product. > > If the DATA supports more non-na venues, so be it; if the data says zero > non-NA venues so be it. If the data says all meeting should be in Timbuktu, > so be it. > > So what does the data say? > > David Bagby > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:22 PM > To: 'John Hawkins'; 'Bob O'Hara (boohara)'; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, 2009Plenary > Session for your review > > > Better judgments/earlier adjustments for attendance can likely be obtained > by making the early registration period open sooner and the "ratchet up > point" occur earlier (with significant steps up for later registration). > > I also liked the suggestion (I think it may have been Buzz's, but don't > recall for sure) to have a 2 tier registration ... With a "surcharge" if you > will that would cover the "fair share" cost of meeting space and other > things for folks who choose not to book hotel rooms in our hotel/block. To > me, that is fair, because those who stay in other hotels are impacting our > costs for other things that are provided (and in EU charged for) by our > meeting hotel. > > Regards, > Carl > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of >> John Hawkins >> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:43 PM >> To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, >> 2009Plenary Session for your review >> >> That ability certainly exists. We have a healthy reserve at >> the moment, >> and we have time to add to it if deemed necessary for the Rome session >> (or any other one for that matter). Note that any session defict by >> definition comes out of that reserve. Where else would it >> come from? So >> the trick is being able to predict attendance. This was the case w/ >> London, and will be the case going forward. It's hard to predict how >> many folks will show up, and how many rooms they will book. >> >> john >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** >> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara >> (boohara) >> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:14 PM >> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Final venue choices for our March 8-13, >> 2009Plenary Session for your review >> >> Even with all the uncertainty about attendance and cost, I >> support going >> to the Rome venue. >> >> I would like to hear John Hawkins' thoughts on the ability to use a >> growing reserve to partially offset the large meeting registration >> fee. >> >> -Bob > > ---------- > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This > list is maintained by Listserv. > > ---------- > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This > list is maintained by Listserv. -- John R. Barr (John.Barr@Motorola.com) Director, Standards Realization - <http://www.motorola.com> Chairman of the Board, Bluetooth SIG - <http://www.bluetooth.org> (847) 576-8706 (office) +1-847-962-5407 (mobile) (847) 576-6758 (FAX) ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.