(forgive my top of post email) I agree this is a short-term solution, but so is raising costs. How many people will not attend Nanog when the cost goes up? What if the cost goes down, would more people attend which would reduce the need to reduce costs?
Someone pointed out that this might not affect many as the cost to attend is paid for by the 'company'. Every company I know has a limited T&E budget. By bringing the cost up $100/meeting or $300/year, that extra $100 could force someone who attended 3x a year to only 2x a year. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 11:56 AM To: Christian Nielsen Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reasons for attendance drop off > > Forget what I said about Vegas. I was looking at it from a cost > perspective. > > One item of note, the cost to attend the conference is the same no > matter where the venue. I am sure some venues are less expensive than > others. Maybe pricing should be based on the location. > > There have been enough different locations already that if we saw the > true cost to host at any one location, it might help decide where future > Nanogs are held. Or they can say, the cost cannot exceed x. > > Having Data on cost breakdown per location might start making Eugene or > Salt Lake City a yearly occurrence to save money. > > What about splitting the conference away from the Hotel? Go back to > looking at bussing people to less expensive locations which are close. > > Christian > Hi Christian, Focusing on expense is a short term way to manage a loss in the front end, the bottom line. It would be useful to talk about solutions that drive attendance, IMHO. I would hope that there is plan in place to address this for the Toronto meeting. -M<
