gapingvoid: "cartoons drawn on the back of business cards"

Hugh, would you pay to get into the event that asked you to be on a panel? This, as I read Jarvis' article, is the real crux of the matter. I thought the bit about "cut of the gate" was just him having a bit of fun.

Agree with Milan, I think that is his real point.

Speaking from the conference organizer side (not this particular one Jarvis harps on), I don't understand the rationale of organizations who charge their speakers the same registration fees as everyone else. I never have.

The content your speakers offer is what you're selling. In retail terms, speakers are "cost of goods sold", not a revenue opportunity.

I'm a regular speaker at my industry association's annual gig. Every year they tell me the only way to attend all the sessions and avoid the registration fee is to attend a special "speaker's session" on how to be a good speaker. But once you've done that, that should be enough. How much better am I going to get in an hour? It's silly and counterproductive.

So have to agree with Jarvis' main point. Personally speaking, I often arrange air and hotel for certain "recognized" names that will draw attendees - that's a marketing cost. If I'm running a seminar on blogging, I wouldn't get nearly as much value offering say, me, as a speaker instead of Jarvis or McLeod, even though I know a heck of a lot about the subject.

But not everyone gets travel reimbursed - as Hugh mentions, as an organizer I'm also in a position to help elevate people without "name recognition", so there's both a networking benefit and a "benefit by association" that accrues to those non-celebrity people who are on my speaker rosters.

No fee? Cool, we'll have to "persuade" you with booze to come over to Ireland for our next TechCamp

It's important to remember that your average professional society serves three interconnected purposes:

1) Make money for the people running the thing.
2) Facilitate Networking.
3) Manufacture paper trails of expertise for the members.

Kinda sad if blogging conferences don't come up with a more interesting model.

1) Make money for the people running the thing.
2) Facilitate Networking.
3) Manufacture paper trails of expertise for the members.

Having been a president of such a group (presidents are the volunteer position - Executive Directors get a salary) I can tell you there is a 4th purpose: Provide actual value for the attendees so they come and come back.

It makes no sense not to give speakers/panelist a free ticket - it makes attendance go up - attendees get to hang out with speakers etc.

As for paying them, if the organization isn't rich (not all are) you have to juggle how to do that without breaking the bank. It's a balance between providing good people to speak, which one only comes if you pay them, and what non-cash value can you provide.

**Kinda sad if blogging conferences don't come up with a more interesting model.**

Well let's not be different just because we can. New ways of doing things are not better because they are new, they are better if they use new technology or ideas in ways that weren't possible before to solve real problems.

Seem's like Jarvis' problem could be solved by good old common sense.

John, I totally agree with your #4, it's just that for a lot of organizations the networking part mostly covers it and a good keynote speaker is the rest. In the best case all the panels are really fascinating and exciting, but I've seen other cases.

A "more interesting model" in my opinion isn't new for the sake of new (and maybe it's not even new), but when Hugh says someone wanted $1500 from him, my WTF Meter goes nuts. A big part of the appeal of blogging is the low barrier to entry financially, technically and logistically. Blogferences should also be like that, I think.

(Disclaimer: haven't actually been to any yet, hoping to do so in '06.)