
This was the panel that I most wanted to attend at SMOFcon. Indeed, I wanted to attend it so much that I turned down the opportunity to be on the Social Media panel that, bizarrely, was scheduled against it. Here’s a brief summary for those of you who were not following my tweets.
The panel started quite badly with the panel essentially moaning about how convention members always want more and more out of a con and it is harder and harder to keep them happy. Well duh! What did you expect? That people would ask for less next year? But also it isn’t entirely true. There are some things that convention members used to regard as essential but are now going away. Progress reports was the example that immediately occurred to me. Kevin came up with film programs.
Fortunately the panel quickly realized that they knew a lot less than the audience about the topic, and Bobbi Armbruster proceeded to moderate the event as a mass workshop. Most of the discussion then focused on that old debate of if/how conventions need to market themselves. There were the usual stale conversations about how young people today are X, Y and Z. Mark Olson made a magnificent comment about how you know you are getting old when you find yourself saying, “young people today are not the same as they were in my day.” They are, of course. The characteristic of young people is that they think the old fogies have it all wrong and everything must change. The characteristic of old people is that they think young folks will destroy all that they hold dear. This pattern repeats endlessly.
As Mark rightly said, the big change between then and now is that science fiction has been accepted by mainstream popular culture. As a result, there are now many large and successful commercial events devoted to science fiction, and many more people with a passing interest in it (but not necessarily a passion for it). The challenge for us is to adapt to that situation.
Marketing is something that fans are not good at. I heard a few people say that they had tried to market their convention and it had not worked so they assumed it was a waste of time. I suspect they were just doing it wrong. Alternatively they may have expected a much higher return than is reasonable. If you attend a 20,000 person commercial convention and sell 20 memberships that might be a very good conversion rate. It may be a poor return on the investment for you, but if you have reached 20 people, many of whom who will become new fans and attend conventions for the rest of their lives, that’s a good thing to have done.
One of the most important things about marketing is to identify your target market and appeal to it. I’m indebted to Michael from Arizona who made the very salient point that much of what people used to go to conventions for — meeting and talking to fellow fans, buying special-interest merchandise — can now be done much more effectively online. What conventions need to do is identify things that can’t be done online and provide them.
An example that Michael came up with is posing space for cosplay people (from both anime and steampunk fandom). What those folks want (and see any of my Finncon reports for examples) are safe spaces where they can see and be seen. They don’t necessarily want to enter a masquerade. Many of them are teenage girls who are very shy and non-competitive, but they will be very grateful for somewhere they can go to be in costume. I note that this is a very low maintenance activity.
A point I found it necessary to make is that conventions do not scale linearly. The percentage of members who will be willing to help run a 200 member convention is much higher than the percentage of members who will be willing to help run a 2000 member convention. But equally those 200 members are much higher maintenance than the additional 1800 who attend the bigger event. By the time you get to a 20,000 member convention most of the members want very little from the event. The assumption that a 10,000 person Worldcon would be twice as hard to run, and need twice as many volunteers, as a 5,000 person event is quite wrong.
Of course if you insist on sticking to a philosophy of only wanting your convention attended by people who show the level of commitment that SMOFcon attendees show then you certainly don’t want 2,000 members, let alone 20,000, but that’s slightly different discussion.
At the end of the panel I managed to get a plug in for online conventions such as Flycon (and thanks to Ruth Sachter for mentioning Bittercon). Those sort of things may well be more the future of conventions for many people. We didn’t have any time to discuss them (and it looked like none of the panel even knew such things existed), but I did at least get in a plea for conventions to be less defensive about people trying to report from their events. Positive reports (such as the mass of happy blogging we got from World Fantasy last month) are really good marketing material.
I should add thanks here to Karen Meschke, the chair of SMOFcon 27, who was very supportive of what Kevin and I were doing in covering her event.