TAM London

[afdlondon]

I was very excited to receive the link the the TAM London event. What a super way of educating and entertaining people about the movement.

Then I saw the price, £208. I assume that the limited number of places (1000+ I think) and the level of demand sets this price. Is that a not-for-profit principle? Sounds more like a for profit principle leaking into the system.

Even if this does just "cover costs" (over £200,000!), I had to laugh at the student discount ..... a pitiful £10. So perhaps we should take the "E" out of "JREF". It is clearly not wanting to attract students or people without an income.

Sorry to be such a grinch on my first post, but the ticket price left me thinking JREF was should be renamed "Church of Scepticism" and that I would only ever get to "level 9" by signing over my future income and paying at least £500,000. Only then would I get to meet the great Xenu ..... errr sorry I meant Randi.

:rolleyes:

[bjornart]

TAM London 2010 is a world-class fundraising conference which this year is being held on 16 – 17 October 2010 at the Hilton London Metropole hotel. Join amazing speakers and over 1000 like-minded delegates for a fundraising celebration of science, critical thinking and entertainment in the heart of the city.

My emphasis.

Would removing the fundraising aspect improve the educational value of the conference? I seriously doubt it.

[afdlondon]

Sure, but with 1,000 seats in a big venue don't you think there would be a few places for "education"? After all, here is JREFs mission statement number 1.

"The Foundation’s goals include:
Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.""

So why not have say 50-100 seat available to under 21 year olds for £20 not £200 ... or would that be too "educational" ......

Or indeed go to some schools and colleges and offer invitations some students.

Money isn't everything.

[KarlG]

I agree that a £10 student discount is rather pointless, but as Bjornart says above, it is fundraising for the JREF and from the Facebook page i understand it is of a similar cost to other conferences of the same size.

The student discount should be 50% i think. I would happily pay more myself (speaking as a full price ticket holder) to allow more students to attend, but i assume i would be in the minority. Maybe if there are tickets left they could be offered to students at a cut price?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I was very excited to receive the link the the TAM London event. What a super way of educating and entertaining people about the movement.

Then I saw the price, £208. I assume that the limited number of places (1000+ I think) and the level of demand sets this price. Is that a not-for-profit principle? Sounds more like a for profit principle leaking into the system.

Even if this does just "cover costs" (over £200,000!), I had to laugh at the student discount ..... a pitiful £10. So perhaps we should take the "E" out of "JREF". It is clearly not wanting to attract students or people without an income.

Sorry to be such a grinch on my first post, but the ticket price left me thinking JREF was should be renamed "Church of Scepticism" and that I would only ever get to "level 9" by signing over my future income and paying at least £500,000. Only then would I get to meet the great Xenu ..... errr sorry I meant Randi.

:rolleyes:

Don't go.

[bjornart]

I had a few replies half formed, but I find I somewhat agree with you, so they went in the bin. Reserving some seats for representatives of student skeptical societies or just student newspapers for instance could have an educational value of a couple hundred quid.

[sadluxation]

I agree it's a difficult decision for the JREF on pricing the event. Obviously raising funds for educational out-reach is a primary objective.

There are some other possibilities for low-income/students, etc.

There will be some press passes for folks from organisations and they can apply for them here: http://www.tamlondon.org/media/

There's also the recent announcement of a spread of payments you can find here (http://www.tamlondon.org/resources/tickets/):

We have set aside a percentage of tickets for students or registered unemployed on a payment scheme basis to split the cost over three months. This scheme is intended to help those who cannot otherwise attend TAM London and will not be launched until Friday 4th June 2010.

The other option which hasn't been pushed, is to put together a sponsorship fund, like the one Paul looks after each year. It would be good for those who have a decent income to supplement the less well-off.

That would be the commie in me talking though.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The other option which hasn't been pushed, is to put together a sponsorship fund, like the one Paul looks after each year. It would be good for those who have a decent income to supplement the less well-off.

Are you volunteering? Make that wife of yours do it! :)

[Geek Goddess]

The Skeptics in the Pubs in the London area have a couple hundred people attend, IIRC from listening to Sid and others talk. You can go to those for the price of a pint. Simon Singh has spoken at those, as has JackofKent, and many of the other well-known blogges and podcasters. I'd be going to all of them if I lived in London.

The website shows that there are some press passes available, so I would suggest if you write for a student newspaper, ask for one.

[Uncayimmy]

Be reasonable. The gross receipts from the first 650 attendees would barely cover Mr. Randi's salary for the year.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Be reasonable. The gross receipts from the first 650 attendees would barely cover Mr. Randi's salary for the year.

And?

[Uncayimmy]

And?

Did my statement seem incomplete to you? If so, you'll have to elaborate.

[lionking]

A similar price will deter quite a few from attending TAM Australia. This is not just conjecture, a number of Aussie skeptics have told me so.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Did my statement seem incomplete to you? If so, you'll have to elaborate.

It seemed like you were trying to make a point. I guess not.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A similar price will deter quite a few from attending TAM Australia. This is not just conjecture, a number of Aussie skeptics have told me so.

Oh well.

[rjh01]

A similar price will deter quite a few from attending TAM Australia. This is not just conjecture, a number of Aussie skeptics have told me so.

As long as it does not deter <insert here the capacity of TAM Australia> this issue does not matter.

[Uncayimmy]

It seemed like you were trying to make a point. I guess not.

I stated a fact. I found it at www.Guidestar.org (registration is free).

[Akhenaten]

As long as it does not deter <insert here the capacity of TAM Australia> this issue does not matter.





Is there any issue at all on which you aren't the final authority, rjh01?

[Uncayimmy]

As long as it does not deter <insert here the capacity of TAM Australia> this issue does not matter.

That's just stupid. What matters is fulfilling the mission of the organization. I'm pretty sure that's not simply a matter of finding the highest price they can charge for a venue and still fill the eats. Hell, that might not even result in the highest revenue, and if it results in lost donations because the organization is seen as elitist, then it's sacrificing long-term success for short term revenue. If the attendees don't feel it was worth the money, then that's even worse. I could go on, but I don't think it's worth the effort.

If you want to tell somebody, "Either pay up or don't go" then just come right out and say it. Pretending like you really "know" all that "matters" is just foolish.

[rjh01]

Is there any issue at all on which you aren't the final authority, rjh01?

Who said I was "The final authority?" Not me. I just gave my opinion, nothing more.

[rjh01]

That's just stupid. What matters is fulfilling the mission of the organization. I'm pretty sure that's not simply a matter of finding the highest price they can charge for a venue and still fill the eats. Hell, that might not even result in the highest revenue, and if it results in lost donations because the organization is seen as elitist, then it's sacrificing long-term success for short term revenue. If the attendees don't feel it was worth the money, then that's even worse. I could go on, but I don't think it's worth the effort.

If you want to tell somebody, "Either pay up or don't go" then just come right out and say it. Pretending like you really "know" all that "matters" is just foolish.


No, it is not worth going on, as what you have written does not address what I said. I could write a better rebuttal to my own post than what you have written.

TAM London will have 1,000 tickets available. I doubt that could be called elitist.
http://www.tamlondon.org/

[Akhenaten]

Who said I was "The final authority?" Not me. I just gave my opinion, nothing more.





Perhaps it was the way your post that was worded which led me into error:

As long as it does not deter <insert here the capacity of TAM Australia> this issue does not matter.





I'm sure that on reflection you'll be able to see how that might have happened.

[rjh01]

As long as it does not deter <insert here the capacity of TAM Australia> this issue does not matter.

Cannot resist temptation. Here is my rebuttal to my own post.

The problem with your post rjh01, is that it is very difficult to set the 'right price'. Set it too high and you end up with unsold tickets. This would be very embarrassing in so many ways.

On the other hand You also need to ensure that the venue is big enough as you do not want to have tickets sold out within the hour as in TAM London 2009. Source http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/554-tam-london-sold-out.html

Edit. You must also ensure that no matter what price is charged, people get value for money, so they go away happy they have spent their money.


No, your post is far too simplistic.


If you want to find fault with what I say, please ensure you can do a better job of it than what I can.

[Uncayimmy]

No, your post is far too simplistic.

Quoted for irony.

[Akhenaten]

As long as it does not deter <insert here the capacity of TAM Australia> this issue does not matter.

Cannot resist temptation. Here is my rebuttal to my own post.

<snip>

No, your post is far too simplistic.


If you want to find fault with what I say, please ensure you can do a better job of it than what I can.





WTF?

[Naddig74]

The tennis championships at Wimbledon are always overwhelmed with far more customers than they can seat, and lots of people would like to watch the tennis but can't afford it. They solve this by setting up a huge screen outside the grounds on a nearby hill where latecomers/paupers can watch the main matches. Obviously, they aren't getting the close up live experience, or the strawberries and cream, or protected from the inevitable rain, or sung at by Cliff Richard, but they see the tennis.

Why not try something similar for TAM london?

[bjornart]

The tennis championships at Wimbledon are always overwhelmed with far more customers than they can seat, and lots of people would like to watch the tennis but can't afford it. They solve this by setting up a huge screen outside the grounds on a nearby hill where latecomers/paupers can watch the main matches. Obviously, they aren't getting the close up live experience, or the strawberries and cream, or protected from the inevitable rain, or sung at by Cliff Richard, but they see the tennis.

Why not try something similar for TAM london?

Because the budget for TAM London isn't anything close to the budget for Wimbledon. And because it would hurt the sales of TAM London DVDs which I presume will be offered for this year as well. (Although the DVDs from last year are horribly delayed.) Unless you consider DVDs "something similar", in that case: They're doing that.

[Naddig74]

Well there you go then. If you can't afford a ticket, you can buy the DVD. Which is what I will probably do. :)

[R.Pettipher]

I have just received the DVDs for Tam London 2009 - only 8 months after the event - and I am rather disappointed.
There is a warning at the beginning that some slides are missing for copyright reasons, so we have the excellent talk by Brian Cox marred by the occasional slide that we cannot see, and the invisible laser pointer (I am sure that there must be some technical reason why the laser pointer is not registered by the camera), and then the talk by Ben Goldacre with no slides at all!
So we see Ben's back as he is pointing out (sometimes amusing, apparently) items on the projected slides that we cannot see. From time to time there is a bit of text in a corner of a slide which is visible behind Ben, but this only adds to the general frustration of being offered something, then having it taken away.

In contrast the talk by Simon Singh was complete and excellent.

So far I have only seen the first few talks, but with missing slides, the very variable sound quality and the invisible laser pointer I am not sure how much further I will get.

Unless they do better in 2010 the DVDs are certainly not a substitute for the live performance.

[LashL]

Live is always better, no question.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Live is always better, no question.

Especially regarding women.

[sadluxation]

I believe copyright issues, libel laws and lack of sponsorship are the main reasons why the event isn't live streamed. I imagine it does cut into DVD sales too, but I can't back it up with any figures.
I think when speakers are not surrendering their presentations, or don't hold the copyright to images, etc causes the main problems with the DVD edits, etc.

[Geek Goddess]

Tracy told me, last year, that the copyright issues were a big part of the decision.