2 Aug
2005
2 Aug
'05
5:35 p.m.
Rumor has it that Joe R. may have mentioned these words:
At 05:48 PM 8/2/05 -0400, Paul wrote:
No, this is very different.
I beg to differ... see below:
>>>> "Julian" == Julian Wolfe <fireflyst at earthlink.net>
writes:
Julian> I actually have a few problems with how the show was run,
Julian> speaking mainly as an exhibitor, I think it was run quite
Julian> backwards. To charge to exhibit, then not charge for
Julian> admission, is a slap in the face to the individuals who
Julian> hauled their stuff out to show.
It's perfectly common hamfest practice, and no one seems to think this
is strange Sellers go to a hamfest with the express
purpose of SELLING things. Therefore they're willing to invest a certain
amount in "buying" a table. They don't go to exhibit so they give little
care to what their table and items look like. An exhibition is very
different. The exhibitors go to show their collections and they spend a lot
of time and money preparing their display.
If they sell anything it's just
incidental, certainly their main exhibit items are not for sale!
City: Dayton, OH. Location: Hara Arena. Time: Mid-May. Event: The largest
hamfest on this here planet.
The largest, nicest, and I'd wager *costliest* booths didn't sell a thing.
Both Icom booths (yea, 2!), the Kenwood, Yaesu and Alinco booths had
absolutely nothing for sale. They were exhibitors and were there solely to
show off their equipment. I'd bet that they had to pay to get their
spaces... and a pretty penny, too!
The booths that were selling their wares to offset the cost of the show
were mainly ramshackle quickie jobs there to "do the best they can without
increasing their cost margins."
I saw zero booths that were there solely for the hobby with absolutely no
pecuniary interests whatsoever.
Now:
City: Burlington, MA. Location: Sun Campus. Time: Mid-July, 2004. Event:
VCFEast, Version 2.
[[ No offen[sc]e meant to any of the exhibitors at the show... ]]
At that event, many of the nicest displays (that I saw, anyway) were the
ones that were there primarily to sell their wares. They are the ones who
put more effort into a "professional, polished" appearance. The less
polished exhibits were the ones which (IMHO) expressed to me the thought of
"Dude! Check out my kewl stuff!" a.k.a. booths with zero pecuniary interests.
Again, no offen[cs]e is meant by this - I applaud all the exhibitors at
VCFEast (and also VCFMW, which I was unforch unable to attend due to last
minute familial concerns) but whether or not to charge a) exhibitors and b)
spectators is solely up to the discretion of the person(s) putting on the show.
Furthermore there are FEW hamfests were the buyers
don't have to pay
admission. I agree with Julian, it's an unfair burdain to make the
exhibitors pay, ESPECILLY when the audience is getting in for free.
The audience didn't get in for free, from the sounds of it. To me it sounds
as if it were more like "if for whatever reason you didn't pay we won't
hunt you down and break your kneecaps." Wasn't it said that 70ish people
paid, and a couple dozen didn't? That would put it around 75% of the people
*did* pay to get in. This is speculation, but this could have been due to a
lack of volunteers for the show to man the door at all times.
=-=-=-=-=
Hopefully this row blows over very soon, and I hope that it does not
discourage those in power from putting on a VCFMW 2.0... for I am already
planning on going if it happens, and will volunteer to help out if it does.
I'll even pay to get in, even if I'm working.
Dudez & Dudettez... It's all for the fun of it anyway!
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Profile, don't speculate."
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | Daniel J. Bernstein
zmerch at 30below.com |