Silly conference survey

[Richmond]

On 09/09/2015 11:30 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>> I do think, even if only as a sop to those of us (like myself) who get
>> fed up how RunRev, for all their ballyhoo about China and so forth,
>> do seem to give the impression that they don't really seem to think
>> outside a North Atlantic box, the survey would have looked a bit
>> more friendly if it had left a chance open for participants to suggest
>> other cities in other states/countries than those forced as choices
>> on participants.
>
> To be blunt Richmond, it doesn't take a great deal of thought to 
> understand *why* there is a restricted choice. Indeed, I think people 
> before me have already explained adequately why. However, let me 
> reiterate in perhaps slightly more detail:
>
> The point of a conference is that people attend.
>
> If people are to go to a conference then they need to be able to 
> afford to do so.
>
> If you hold a conference somewhere where the cost to get there exceeds 
> someone's ability to pay those costs, they won't go.
>
> If you hold a conference somewhere where the ticket price has to 
> exceed someone's ability to pay that cost, they won't go.
>
> Therefore, you need to ensure that you hold the conference in a 
> location where the most number of people who are likely to attend can 
> attend.
>
> Bearing in mind we have a pretty good map of the locations of the 
> majority of LiveCode users who we would class as 'likely to attend if 
> they can', it isn't a difficult thing to work out where the optimal 
> places to hold it might be.
>
> In regards to why Edinburgh (UK) and not somewhere else in Europe. 
> Then, again, that is an economic imperative. Whilst getting to the 
> main aviation hubs in the Western part of Western Europe (Amsterdam, 
> Paris etc.) is perhaps no more difficult than getting to those in the 
> UK, if we hold the conference in Europe rather than Edinburgh than we 
> have to:
>    1) Only take a restricted set of staff.
>    2) Pay for transporting said staff to the European location.
>    3) Pay for feeding, and housing said staff at the European location.
>
> This latter cost means that (comparatively speaking) the ticket cost 
> of the conference would have to be greater as it has to cover the 
> costs of running the conference (the staff being there being quite an 
> important aspect of this).
>
> Now, of course, it costs more to transit staff to the US (although 
> perhaps not to house!) than Europe; however, we have more users in the 
> US who are 'likely to attend' so the expected tickets sales if we have 
> the conference in the US is higher in the UK.
>
> Basically, where a conference is held is entirely a numbers game.
>
> Sure, we could throw in a couple of 'lets make people feel fluffy 
> questions' into such a survey (which wouldn't really give any useful 
> data at all) but that would just make the survey longer. The longer 
> the survey, the less responses you get, thus the less accurate the 
> results you get. Again, it all comes down to numbers.
>
> Mark.
>

The survey asked if one were likely to attend; but as the choice of 
where one could attend was restricted the results would be
like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Had you offered, say, Munich or somewhere on the Pacific rim 
(Shanghai???) you might have got quite a few people to say they might
attend; but by restricting the choices you will never know.

Richmond.