gaspode | View from the bar ...

I have found myself musing the nature of the relationship between media and Lit fandom over the last few days spent at eastercon.

It was an enjoyable weekend - but I felt it had to work hard to be one. There’s no Bid for 2007 yet - Some people are saying it’s the end of Eastercon.

On reflection I don’t agree - I think that between now and Glasgow next year (if not sooner) someone will step up. I am almost tempted myself as some of you know, but I have several reservations, although the feelings I have expressed to you still stand - but I don’t think now is the time. EC needs to evolve but I think it needs to work out which way for itself, I have some fairly drastic ideas, but I'm not convinced EC is ready for them (In fact I know its not). Who am I to judge? No one special but I am regular attendee (not every year - but certainly most since Confabulation in the docklands in 95 (or 94 - I can’t remember) and 4 or 5 before that over the previous 10 years.

The problem is always going to be how to change for the better without losing your core attendees - and that’s something that is going to be very hard for EC. But if it doesn't it is going to continue to shrink - it may take a few years or it could be as soon as 2007. EC doesn’t market itself - it takes the 'If we run it they will come' attitude. It needs new blood (like so many other conventions - it is by no means the only con guilty of this - certain established Media Cons take the same stance and have the same problem). New Blood - New Attendees - found from new sources. EC can be difficult for an 'Outsider' to crack. It has all the right ingredients - a good selection of relevant guests, several streams and lots of panels and the games and 'fun items'. But it can be difficult to get accepted into the established 'cliques' - This con has been running a long time after all and many of the attendee’s have been coming for 30 years plus. While most are not rude (though some are) many are very disinterested in embracing new people – or even engaging in conversation with them.

The main thing that needs to be addressed I think is the negativity some have towards the inclusion of a media strand (something that is still minimal). Should EC become a media con? Certainly not. That said having a panel called 'Have Media fans fecked Fandom' may not be the way to go (incidentally the conclusion was 'No'). The inclusion of more media related panels - (but still small scale ones) can help bring more fans in to the true SF fold - god only knows nowadays people need to be encouraged to read - Have items that will help bring these people in and make the con more accessible to newbie’s - more smaller interactive items - two of the most enjoyable panels for me over the weekend were the ;Have I got books for you' and 'SF Charades panels' - oddly enough an awful lot of redemption faces were at these panels. Also the Galactica and HHTGH panels were literally overflowing from their room – the interest is there - so give the media strand more depth.

Sorry – Its probably not my place to go on like this but I class myself as a Sci-Fi/fantasy fan. I don’t make a distinction between Lit and Media and why should I ?

No, EC shouldn’t become a media con – We have Redemption which does that well (and embraces the lit side too). But it needs to realise it needs to sell it’s self and make people outside the established con circuit aware of its existence. Bring people in and give them a good time they will come back – and bring their friends. The Exec of Eastercon always do a sterling job - and I take my hat off to anyone who takes a con on and succeeds (i'm wayyy too lazy). As i said this is just my opinion and I have no answers.

....

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Marketing is a term i used after much hesitation - but it is not just traditional forms I mean. Word of mouth is free - its how to generate that that is needed.

Yes - The Branding issue is Key - Eastercon should be EasterCon. If for no other reason it makes it easier to find the web page - If you know theres an Eastercon but this year you didnt know it was paragon 2, finding the web page was not straight forward. Branding is marketing and a cheap form.

I really dont want to complain - I did enjoy myself - but I brought some Eastercon first timers with me and saw somethings I normally wouldnt notice.

There was an undercurrent this year that I haven't put my finger on yet - I think I picked up on it by being with the first timers.

I should add these were first time eastercon'ers not first time conventioners by any stretch. I include Reet in that too ...

The branding thing is slightly contentious. There are those who say that it needs to be EasterCon™ Ltd, but the problem that you get with that is determining who owns that. It's easier for the WorldCons, becuase they have WSFS behind them, but getting together the momentum to do that in the UK is difficult.

Then, on the other hand, you have people who would argue strongly that there shouldn't be an Eastercon brand, becuase it implies that the cons are all run by the same people.

Actually, that leads me to another thought that really belongs further up the thread...

I dont think a con name need imply that the same people run it - no reason why the exec cant change each year much as it does now ...

To be honest I dont have a problem with the different Con names anyway - as long as there is a central way of finding the Con online - much like Worldcon.org. I know at the moment there is a problem with pulling together all the eastercon URL's but if that can be sorted it would help a lot.

I dont think a con name need imply that the same people run it - no reason why the exec cant change each year much as it does now

No, but it's a perception thing, and whether that's right or wrong....

True.

Subtitling perhaps ?

Its a tricky question and I dont have the answer - just more questions.

We're doing something about that.
I've bought all the eastercon domain names (com/org/net/co.uk/org.uk) and in the next couple of weeks I intend to point them all at the web site that

alexmc and others have been putting together.

I've just updated the site at http://www.eastercon.co.uk (which all the others, except www.eastercon.org.uk point to), so it now is up to date with the current situation won eastercons.

Now the convention is over, and once my aunt's funeral is past, I expect I'll be spending more time updating websites (including www.smof.com!)

It's easier for the WorldCons, because they have WSFS behind them...

I don't know if you meant to do this, but to me this implies that there is some formally incorporated body ("WSFS Inc.") who manages the Worldcon and sanctions the individual committees, the way the International Olympic Committee licenses the Olympics to individual host committees.

There is no WSFS Inc. There is no "headquarters" or "home office," and WSFS isn't an incorporated organization. There is no central organization that goes out and promotes Worldcons, or "stands behind" Worldcon committees in any meaningful legal way. Its only definition (an unincorporated literary society) is the WSFS Constitution, and the membership of WSFS is everyone who is a member of the current Worldcon. (It's not possibly to join WSFS any other way.) The "government" of WSFS consists of an annual business meeting, open to every member. (Of course, in practice only about 100 of the thousands of eligible members actually participate, but all of them are eligible to attend, make proposals, debate, and vote if they want to do so.)

The only way in which WSFS is just slightly more centralized than Eastercon is that there is a WSFS Mark Protection Committee whose members are elected at the Business Meeting (Worldcon committees also appoint members), and whose job it is to look after the service marks on "Worldcon," "Hugo Award," etc. (As each Worldcon is a standalone entity, no one committee could actually own the service marks.) The MPC has no independent funding. Individual Worldcon committees donate money to pay for the ongoing cost of registration (Interaction recently paid the cost of renewing one of the WSFS marks in the UK, for instance).

At the couple of Eastercons I've attended, discussions about the future of Eastercon seem to assume a heck of a lot more coherence and permanent structure to WSFS than actually exists. As Chairman of the Mark Protection Committee, I suppose I ought to be flattered, but the real situation for Worldcons isn't a whole lot more different than Eastercon's.

I suppose that you're right in saying that we assume WSFS is more than it is really -- you'd know.

Certainly the perception is that it's far more organised and... well, organised than anything in UK fandom.

But it *is* a permanent, ongoing organisation, which is far more than there is for Eastercons.

I'm going to stop, now. I have no intention of trying to argue any WSFS points with Mark, as I know that he knows infinately more about it than I do!

But it *is* a permanent, ongoing organisation, which is far more than there is for Eastercons.

Only for lack of desire for any sort of ongoing structure. It would be trivially easy to establish the (extremely minimal) amount of organizational structure of WSFS for an Eastercon, without even recourse to Troublesome Americans like me. There are several rules wonks among the Eastercon regulars who could do it, starting with

timill, who is also Chairman of this year's WSFS Business Meeting. But this has at least two problems:

1. Getting people to agree to it WSFS's structure is not imposed from above; the members voted to establish it and continue to work within the structure. If my own experience of Eastercons (admittedly limited) is indicative, most of the people who care at all about this issue object strongly to anything that smacks of structure of any sort and will shout down any attempts to create it, even the WSFS model where all of the actual authority is vested in the individual conventions and the so-called "central government" is effectively powerless.

2. It wouldn't address the issue at hand. Having permanent structure isn't really what is hurting Eastercon, and establishing a WSFS-type organizational structure won't make things any better. Eastercons, like Worldcons, are dependent upon individuals coming forward and volunteering their time and effort. Without people willing to do the work, the event collapses.

FWIW, the convention most like Eastercon in this regard is IMO Westercon. Westercon nominally has a permanent structure (a WSFS-style set of bylaws) and even has an incorporated body as a backup (LASFS officially owns the service mark but takes little active hand in management of the convention). Westercon rotates around Western North America, but has been growing smaller and smaller in recent years, and many (including me) have started questioning its viability.

View from the bar ...

Re: Eastercon (R)?

Re: Eastercon (R)?

Re: Eastercon (R)?

Re: Eastercon (R)?

Re: Eastercon (R)?

Re: Eastercon (R)?

eastercon.org

Re: Eastercon (R)?

Re: Eastercon (R)?

Re: Eastercon (R)?