On Aug 16, 2013, at 1:42 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <h...@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> We already have a version of "self-pay", namely the very low student rate. > For that rate, you are supposed to show student ID (not sure how and whether > this is enforced), so it's not quite the same, but it's a "means-based" test, > as well as an attempt to increase the diversity of participants. Nearly every > scientific conference has versions of differentiated pricing - special rates > for authors, attendees from low-income countries, students, society members > (i.e., likely repeat attendees), ... In those venues, the general rule of > thumb for organizers is that even the lowest priced category pays for the > variable costs, and the fixed costs are borne by those more able to pay. > > We also have the early-registration rate - thus, late and on-site > registrations "subsidize" the early bird moochers. > > We presumably want to encourage building a community, and that includes > making it possible for people to attend who might not otherwise be able to. > Our objective is not one-time revenue optimization. Many individuals switch > back-and-forth between traveling on their own dime and on corporate tabs, and > we want to encourage continued engagement, if only to increase our supply of > Nomcom-eligibles. > > Thus, I think this is worth exploring, as an experiment, just like we started > the day-pass experiment a number of years ago. I don't know what "this" refers to in the above sentence, but I agree with everything else in your note. Mark > > Henning > >> I'm not talking about posting this info on web, nor a "full range of >> potential". We already have multiple reg-fee categories; I'm talking about >> adding *one* more. I don't know who in the "leadership" can see a list of >> what rates people paid - if we need to constrain that, that's a solvable >> problem. It's not the sky falling. >> >> Regardless, the same argument can be made for charging remote participants >> to "donate" 0-100% or whatever. >> >> -hadriel >> >> >
