"Question from a Vendor about Historicon dealer room" Topic

A exhibitor hall badge is the stupidest idea I have heard next to the exhibitor sq foot cost discussion.

You attend the convention buy a badge. Overhead is for running the convention AND the cost of running the organizatrion. I don't pin my badge on my shirt but put it in a convention style badge holder. Why should I have to pay for the plastic badge holder when I bring my own!

And all this about exhibitor space is a canard as well. Exhibitors at the Host pay for tables. Figure the square footage based on table space not the "FREE" area for you to set up your cooler, lawn chairs, and dog dishes. HMGS does not charge for that. Some already set up the exhibitor area as a booth layout already, BTC, Brigade, Relic Games etc. By the logic here they must have been getting over for years on HMGS by doing that.

VR
James Mattes

Hey if enough other guys in the hall can tell me they had an increase because of the extra day- I will drop it- I talked with a couple that feel the same as me.

However I had one vendor tell me it was the worst show he had had in 20 years and the biggest guy in the hall mentioned as of Saturday that it was not looking good and I think he was serious.

James,

The table layout at the Host was a 6' by 6' plan, with a 2' walk way between the dealers – which is why there is always a 2' gap at the end of each aisle. Now, the walk way issue has never been enforced and the dealers have been allowed to use that space, which is why Pictors comes up with a 14' wide area.

And, by your logic, if the dealers were only paying for tables, then the dealer hall set up would mirror the flea market – a table with just enough space behind it to stand.

This isn't directly related, but is the space available for the Dealers at the VFCC significantly larger than at the Host? If so, by what percent is it bigger? 25%? 50%? 100%?

And if it IS larger, what is being done to entice new vendors to attend? Surely a bottom-level price INCREASE isn't the way to do that!

I want to say that the VFCC is about 1/3 larger than floor space at the Host.

The draw for new dealers is a larger place, and hoped for more attendees.

As I said a while back, the price increases are a result of the budgeting process. That's not that hard to understand, as the VFCC is far more expensive than the Host. You can't go to a bigger place, that is more expensive, and offer chepaer prices – unless you have stimulus money backing you.

I have always wondered how many people just go to the big East cons to buy stuff and don't game. Reading the posts here it sounds like most people just make a day trip of it to stop at the dealers hall and call it a day. How many people buy just a one day pass vs a multi day pass?

Miniatureships 17 Mar 2010 8:09 a.m. PST wrote:
James,

And, by your logic, if the dealers were only paying for tables, then the dealer hall set up would mirror the flea market – a table with just enough space behind it to stand.

Oh I am not saying the dealers are paying ONLY for the table space, just that trying to compare the cost per square foot discussion is apples and rocks. FWIW the "exibitors" pay for around 40-50% of the cost of the conventions overall.
VR
James Mattes

foxfoxfox,
Like Double G we had an increase over previous Cold Wars making the extra day very worthwhile. There is just something about sales on Thursdays at 4 day conventions. If there is no thursday the sales just don't move to Fridays.

cheers,
rob
eureka miniatures usa

doug redshirt: How many people buy just a one day pass vs a multi day pass?

I have no idea, but I do know that some friends of mine who were at Cold Wars on Saturday only were given "Weekend" passes because they ran out of the One-day passes, if that is any help. Could be they didn't make enough of them, or perhaps more people did the one-day trip than in the past in order to save hotel costs, so that they could save money for shopping in the flea market and dealer area instead.

Foxfoxfox,
Sorry to hear some vendors had a bad show and were not happy with the fourth day added on.

Bottom line is all of the dealers are in this together and if the cons stop becoming profitable due to rising costs/lower attendance/less money spent/less profit, we're all in trouble.

I hate hearing anyone had a bad show; if one vendor has a bad show, that is one too many IMO.

Knowing what a project it is driving, unloading and setting up, selling, breaking down, reloading and driving back, at the end of the day if a dealer is not making enough money for all of that effort, I feel for the guy.

I hope Historicon works out better……….

The 6 x 6 foot area was a myth at many conventions. The tavbles were only 6' x 30" of DISPLAY frontage. So with a 10 foot frontage you get 4 feet more of frontage space for $400. USD This is close to the 3 x more cost that D McBride mentions. Not even including the peddlers (tansient) fee.

I use the term nyth because dealers buy based on display frontage rather than total quoted frontage. A majority of dealers set up using the table frontage rather than full area. The full area use is always hampered by your rear neighbor in an island set up. Also if your table is part of an elbow, you loss that rear area. So you are getting 12 feet of display frontage but still in only a 6 x 6 area rather than a 6 x 12 area. That is a lot of lost area footage. A key example of the myth.

Sadly if you only have one table and are located at a cap or next to one your total area is not much more than 6' x 30".
Also another point of the 36 square foot myth for a 6' table frontage space, is that when you are between the dealer openiing and any table you must due to courtesy and request leave at least one foot per table back space. This is to allow dealers to get to their spce at any point in the island. So the most that you can really have in an island is 6' x 5'.

questions from the natural trouble maker in me?
if the dealers are not using the full area, how can the neighbor to the back be creeping into your usable space?

i have also learned today thet the term vendor is an insult to the people in the dealer hall, so we probably need to rename this topic…

listen i understand that saying the price per foot is the samew when they force you to buy more footage is just not right.
and we also get that display area is also a very important factor. but please don't act like you only need use a table and not even room for a chair as your space.

larry

"How many people buy just a one day pass vs a multi day pass?"

That is not necessarily an indication of anything. The number of passes sold are well documented, but the problem is it doesn't mean they are ever used (no shows), or fully used (I had a full pass, but only came up Saturday morning), or, if you buy a one day pass, but stay both Saturday and Sunday, then you are really there for two days (no pass needed usually on Sunday). So, the sale of badges is only a faint indication of who is and isn't there.

And then there are folks like Bill G and I who run games but still buy passes. Also I use to work staff and got staff badge as well. Bill R. use to have fits going back into the database to cull out the double badgers.
VR
James Mattes

Well James, I've spoken to lots of people who've all said the same thing – A lower-cost pass for the exhibitor hall only would be a great thing. I guess we're all stupid and you're the only smart guy that buys a pass, even when entitled to a freebee (?). Your flippant attitude is appreciated. I'm done with HMGS shows.

36 hours and 64 posts later there is still no answer to the original question: who's idea was it about the booths and why? Just so's you all know I did ask the question yesterday to Bob Giglio (con director), Monica (dealer room coordinator for Historicon and Michelle P. (Board dealer liaison). The only one I heard back from was Bob and he said it wasn't his idea or his say. Sad affair isn't it when the Convention Director has no control or say over what is done to the folks in the dealer room that pay for a nice big chunk of the event before anyone gets to it.
The Con Ops (Orest) guy comes on here but doesn't answer the questions either. I'm not sure what Orest was answering. (Orest, I know you're trying, but please allow me to give you some sage advice. As a former Board member, Dealer Liaison, Dealer Room Coordinator and going on 19 years in the business, you've got to learn how to knock down problems one at a time and make sure they stay down. You've got to answer questions forthrightedly and honestly. No beating around the bush or promising things and then talking to the legal guys to see just how far you can go and what you can't say. If you don't know the answer to a question – say so. Then go find the answer and get back to those folks who asked…..ASAP)
BTW, if you readers have not checked it out yet, there is another thread here in the conventions discussion….Walt O'Hara's AAR. There's a link there to his blog which contains a sobering rendition of the way things are currently in HMGS Historicon land – and what they may become if the more serious threats on the horizon become realities.

One interesting fact about the table vs booth cost is that the big boys (those companies who get a half or full Island will be spending significantly more money.

An Island of 16 booths at $1,20USD each would spend $1,920 USD for a 36 x 36 area = 1296 square feet. The equal in booth save is eight booths for 1600 square feet for only $3,200.USD !!

A half island would cost 8 tables at $120 USD = $960 USD for about 650 sq ft. The equal in booth space is four booth at $1,600USD for 800 square feet.

So the real winners are the large cconventions. Large ompanies who can afford full islands or half islands really have their costs increased which will drop their profit level. So both sizes of companies are having baseline profit levels reduced.

Will some try to reduce space? It is impossible for the small one table (now booth) companies to do so. Even the moderate companies that would take four booths to equal their half islands or two booth companies cannot reorganize into fewer booths. the only one are the large companies who may be able to drop from 8 booths to 6 booths.

How do you get 400 sqft per booth? I thought they were 10x10.

Master Caster,

There won't be an answer. These people don't answer questions and consider themselves accountable to no one.

I have no intention of inciting more Baltimore debating, but I will say the way they handled the extorticon T-shirts was disgusting and jackbooted.

CD, I was in the middle of editing the right numbers as you posted. An island equivelant would be 8 booths in a four x 2 arrangement. 40 foot frontage on two sides.

MC, I too do not think you will get an answer. it does not seem to matter who made the decision. It was made and that is how vendors have to live with it IF they go. Or they can stay at home as several have elected to do.

Sadly several small companies need the exposureand are semi-trapped into having to go to gain market share. i elect not to go and my 15mm North American PreColumbians and the West African 15mm Saheal sales suffer from the lack of national exposure. Regardless of the conditions for vendors it was still my choice.

nudspinespittle 17 Mar 2010 5:49 p.m. PST wrote:
Well James, I've spoken to lots of people who've all said the same thing – A lower-cost pass for the exhibitor hall only would be a great thing.

Okay I will play and a great thing for who. The exhibitors who would end up paying higher costs. Why not make the convention free? The exhibitors could pay for the whole thing. There is something to be said for value for the dollar. HMGS conventions are cheap as dirt. See the hundred or so threads on cost for conventions vs other forms of entertainment.

… Your flippant attitude is appreciated. I'm done with HMGS shows.

If my "attitude" is keeping you from the conventions maybe you should not attend anyway. I would bet if you attended 100 conventions at the same time as me there is a good chance you would never even run into me.

VR
James Mattes

Master Caster 17 Mar 2010 6:03 p.m. PST wrote:
….BTW, if you readers have not checked it out yet, there is another thread here in the conventions discussion….Walt O'Hara's AAR. There's a link there to his blog which contains a sobering rendition of the way things are currently in HMGS Historicon land – and what they may become if the more serious threats on the horizon become realities.

Yes I read that as well. I do take issue with him giving the rest of the board a buy on taking responsibilty for the contract at the BCC. YOU and I both know all contracts use to be subject to the approval of the board before the President (who is the only one authorized to sign) can do so. WHERE WERE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS when it was done? Walt wants to lay it all at one person's feet (Pete) but the BOARD is responsible and they all dropped the ball. I said so months ago before the die was cast.
VR
James Mattes

Rudy, Please contact me off list at loribrom AT cox DOT net. I have a question about an Osprey title……

Thanks,

Lori
Sergeants 3

I have to disagree with your statement about Walt assigning "blame" in his blog.

James Mattes said: I do take issue with him giving the rest of the board a buy on taking responsibilty for the contract at the BCC. […] Walt wants to lay it all at one person's feet (Pete) but the BOARD is responsible and they all dropped the ball.

Here's what Walt posted:

Walt: So who's to blame for the BCC fiasco? There's plenty of it to go around. A certain individual who signed contracts without authorization or approval of the BoD, that much is clear. A certain board that should have deposed him years earlier, but didn't. Lack of regulation, lack of oversight, lack of paying attention to the details. It's all there for everyone to share.

I don't think he lets the BoD off the hook at all.

John,
I read this part "A certain board that should have deposed him years earlier, but didn't."

As nothing more then sour grapes. Deposed him? PLEASE.

I read the rest as refering to past boards not the most recent that approved the contracts. Which by the way should be reflected in the minutes of the meetings of the board that THIS current board could approve and post. Nothing has been done on the minutes in over a year. I have posted on the subject but no one has even attempted to answer. GO figure.

VR
James Mattes

Well, whether you agree with the severity of the criticism or "punishment" he proscribes, he still says that the responsibility for the BCC and it's failed contract is a shared one.

"…the responsibility for the BCC and it's failed contract is a shared one."

Well, there a couple of issues here that some people seem to be smearing together.

First is the issue of whether BCC was a good venue or not. The then BOD seemed to think it was, and voted for it.

The second issue is whether the contracts were well negotiated or not. Not having seen them, nor being an expert on convention contract negotiations, I'll take the word of some they were not, but that is hardly a crime.

Third seems to be the possible liability in trying to cancel said BCC and hotel contracts. That is not Panzeri's fault. They may have been poor contracts. The convention may have lost money (or made money, or broke event – we'll never know) – but one thing they would not have done is lose 100% of their value, as at the very least some dealers and some attendees would have gone, and that money would have generated some sort of income against said contracts.

On top of that, GW would have supported it there (not judging whether that is good or bad, just saying they would have been there with some of their supporters, so more income). But, you can hardly blame Panzeri for what might come now, as he had nothing to do with the cancellation, and yes, most contracts have penalties for cancelling – even the Host.

Now, before anyone tries to label me a BCC supporter, let me just say this – the venue itself is great looking. Having attended the GED, it was very, very nice inside – far better than the Host. Having said that, if I were selecting a new venue, it would never have made my short list due to the lack of dedicated parking and ingress/egree problems that come with that. Remember too, the hotel contracts were an attempt to relieve the dealers' parking situation, so there was method to the madness – even if you disagree with it.

I was prepared to support it there and hope for the best, but like many here, I had my doubts. Still, we could have gone through with it for a year and not have been in danger of losing so much money. That was a decision by a new majority of the BOD, and their right to do, but like all actions, it has consequences. No one knows what they are yet.

So, you can blame Panzeri for what may be poor contracts, but he is hardly responsible for what may come now, as the option was always there to muddle thru for a year and then get out.

I do hope that VFCC is a big success and the other issues resolve themselves. I am sorry to hear so many dealers are having problems with the new prices at the VFCC, and I hope a million people show up to alleviate those concerns. If not, we might just end up back in Lancaster in a year or two. Who knows.

Maybe we should move it to Baltimore.

"But, you can hardly blame Panzeri for what might come now, as he had nothing to do with the cancellation, and yes, most contracts have penalties for cancelling – even the Host."

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think the logic works. It is possible that something that was not a disaster becomes such through the incompetence of those who unwind it. It is also possible that new people inherit such an unmitigated disaster that there is no good resolution.

I am inclined to believe both are true in this case. The original actions were staggeringly foolish and arrogant but I also feel that those who have taken over have handled the matter very poorly as well. Certainly the lack of information, the jack-booted handling to the dealer protest shirts, and other factors do not give one room for optimism.

We seem to have lost perhaps $200k plus and created bad feeling everywhere and yet – shazaam! – no one has admitted to making a mistake! It must just be the worst luck ever!

If I didn't know better I would swear that HMGS was a government operation.

Meet the new boss, Same as the Old boss.

If I didn't know better I would swear that HMGS was a government operation.

If this were a government operation only a select few who have the proper clearance would be allowed to attend and everyone else would have to pay but no entry allowed.

So it's really acting like a typical corporation. Corporate Executives take no blame, it's always somebody or something else's fault if something fails. Even in the rare moments of apology, they're apologizing for their company, not their own incompetence.

As non profits go HMGS has been very open with it's information sharing. I work in the non profit industry and I know many 501(c)(3) corporations that would simply ignore all their members requests like the ones here and on the Yahoo site, outside what they legally have to provide of course. That isn't to say members and vendors are ignored, the data is gathered differently and members give…respect…to the corporate officers. But then again the Execs I work for get paid and the BoD is much larger so maybe that's the difference. What I'm getting at is HMGS system is broken or to be nice about it, maybe the system of corporate management hasn't kept up with the times, hence the very apt

Meet the new boss, Same as the Old boss.

You never liking the BCC is not a factual basis to declare it a disaster. An event that doesn't occur was neither good nor bad. It simply wasn't. We'll never know how it would have played out, and all else is speculation and opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean by orignal actions. The search process was long (years) and drawn out – which probably contributed to some of the rush-rush at the end. The membership, and much of the then BOD, was largely unengaged, as demonstrated by the apparent lack of oversight, and the voting in the past election or two. Lack of attendance at membership and meetings to talk about such a move would also tend to confirm that as well. I do think the weighting of the priorities (e.g. -airport over parking) was perhaps poorly done, but that is my own opinion.

I suspect the new majority on the BOD cancelled the event there due to concerns about details in the contracts, and no doubt in large part from reaction such as here. I understand that. My own opinion that reaching for the lawyers first then telling the BCC and hotel to take a hike, (my words, not theirs) was a mistake. I also don't know what rational cost-benefit analysis took place, nor, to my knowledge, if that question has ever been asked. But, what's done is done. I believe that at worst, the new majority on the BOD did what they thought best in that situation.

HMGSE and its conventions are run by an ever changing group (read – simple board majority of four) of volunteers. Sometimes things run better than others. It is not a full time job, and quite frankly, the time needed to do it right is darned near overwhelming. This is, after all, just a group that puts on wargame conventions. Let's hope they continue doing so.

HG,

Actually, I never had a problem with Baltimore or the BCC as a location. I just felt that it was not a workable solution. I felt from the beginning that HMGS was getting in way over its head. Major convention centers are not something that should be attempted by volunteer organizations that are hard-pressed to manage the Host enough to get them to clean the bathrooms. I also think it was a shocking misread of the proclivities of the membership. When a significant percentage of your attendees pack cold cuts on ice in their sinks I think it is hard to suggest that an increase in costs is not going to have an affect on attendance or dealer revenues.

I think the move to Baltimore was a very bad decision, and unless you believe that the move was going swimmingly and the new BOD moved if to VF for no reason, it is hard to argue that, IMO. That said, I suspect we might have been better off staying the course for at least one year, though I do not know the true nature of the obligations that were staring us in the face. Certainly moving to another high cost location and facing major costs to BCC to leave seems to be somewhat ill-considered. But again, I don't know exactly how much of a mess BCC was shaping up to be.

I'm inclined to think that if they said, "the move was a mistake, we are sorry, but we are stuck for at least one year" and put out a call for the society to help get through this period they would have had a good response.

I don't think it is very arguable that the BCC move as it was done was disastrous or at least nearly so. Amid reports that $50,000 was spent pimping the new location there was no budget for hiring a meeting planner or consultant to help work through this move?

"I'm not sure what you mean by orignal actions. The search process was long (years) and drawn out – which probably contributed to some of the rush-rush at the end."

By original actions I mean the decision to sign contracts committing the society to a new location without getting answers to basic questions such as cost of parking, logistics, costs (including ancillary costs), etc. By not hiring a consultant or meeting planner. By ignoring or shouting down every suggestion that there may be problems with the move.

The fact that the search process went on for years makes it even more inexplicable that a contract was signed without basic due diligence being done. It took years to find Baltimore? The fact is the BOD wrestled with the fact that it was very hard to find a suitable location with more space. And eventually someone came along whose ego was big enough to ignore the problems that had forestalled a move previously. I find it hard to believe that previous BODs had spent years searching, not realizing that Baltimore had a convention center.

I thought this move was ill-considered and done without properly working through the issues. But nevertheless I was stunned by how quickly it all feel apart.

I am not against a new venue, but in the absence of one that is suitable without damaging the convention I would have stayed where we were. The need for more space is grounded in reality but was extremely overblown. Attendance growth has not been significant in recent years and while the expansion of space-consuming things like the painting events has eaten up some space, things were tolerable, imo. Regardless of location I simply do not see where significant growth comes from anyway

How about this. See how VF goes and if it works look at why the move was considered in the first place. I am not going to get into the whole grow the hobby thing here it has been hashed to death. If it does not work high tail it back to Lancaster or some other hole in the wall back water dump with running water and be done with it. Or move it to Texas.
*grin"
VR
James Mattes

HG – "as the option was always there to muddle thru for a year and then get out."
Sir, if you take the time to try and find out exactly what HMGS promised the BCC and several of the Hotel contracts in Baltimore you would not be using that phrase. If the organization had to "muddle thru" just one year every dollar – and then some – in its treasury was in true and serious jeapardy.

Civil – keep on contributing please. It's as if you're taking the words right off my keyboard. Spot on,,,all of it!

Sorry HG et al,,,,correct spelling should be "jeopardy".

Civil D:

Well written, and I tend to agree with your assessments as now clarified. My point was (and to Master Caster too), that if we did limp through the BCC for a year, we wouldn't have to put so much on the line – which is to possibly write it all off, as opposed to only a portion.

I sincerly hope VFCC works out for all, but some good questions are being raised, and I for one, welcome that.

I also hope VFCC works well. I very much want all the conventions to do well. But I am dismayed by things like the way the extorticon T-shirts were handled. With the series of mistakes or worse from HMGS I really don't think that shutting down or shouting down anyone who expresses an opinion you don't like is helpful.

Do they really think that intimidating a dealer into taking off his shirt is going to deflect anger and discontent at this whole affair? Maybe they can shut down TMP too? Bug the rooms at Hcon to search for seditious commentary?

Well, for better or worse, it says right in the convention program booklet that they reserve the right about deciding on t-shirts. Perhaps what the dealers should have done is request a meeting with the board after the dealer area closed. Just a suggestion, but too late now. :-(

Historygamer,

I think its pretty clear that the right to prohibit T-shirts was aimed entirely at inappropriate messages…back to the SS uniform issue, not to stiffly legitimate disagreement with the rulers.

Speaking of T shirts, that must be one heckofa growth industry…in addition to Belle and Blade selling theirs in addition to the videos there were not one but two T shirt vendors…just what we need to promote the hobby.

db

First it was what we were able to say on the "official" HMGS forum, then it was who could even speak on the forum.

Second it is the t-shirts we wear, soon it will require a suit and tie plus an invitation to get in.

Third will it be the games we put on, will all games need to be screened and filtered by the BOD.

Where will the BOD stop in their demand for total control of how we game.

I don't know db, I see a lot of SS t-shirts there, and I would tend to agree with you on the dealers area. I saw one t-shirt on a teenage girl in the mall the other night that I won't even repeat. How proud her parents must be.

I don't pretent to know the line of when a t-shirt is and is not appropriate, but I do know that caveat in the program gives the organizers the final decision.

So then tell me, what is and is not appropriate, cause I sure don't know.

While it is clearly not what the "regalia" clause was intended to address, I don't dispute that as a private group putting on a private event they were within their rights. I just think it stupid and inappropriate. Is that really what we want in our gaming group?

I've been pretty negative on the way all this has been handled but fundamentally I want the society and the cons to prosper. I'm willing to help; I'd just like to feel that I am helping the cons and not feeding someone's megalomania or helping people escape blame for their actions. Saving Hcon is worth a lot of effort, imo. Helping BOD members save face is worth exactly no effort to me.

As a general opinion I think trying to regulate what is and isn't offensive is a very slippery slope.

Well, perhaps instead of wearing t-shirts, the dealers should have requested a meeting with the board in the evening (after they had time to catch dinner). I think some valid points have been brought up about dealer concerns, but wouldn't an adult dialogue have been more effective? Did anyone ask for a meeting?

The t-shirt thing from what I understand was total BS on the part of the board. Why not kick me out three years ago for wearing a "move Historicon Now" button? The board should have had better things to do.
VR
James Mattes

There's a joke in there somewhere for an extorticon shirt for the low low price of 18.00; look hard enough and you'll find it………….

Double G

The cost to produce 50 T-shirts, for which 30+ vendors
pre-ordered on Thursday, was $18. USD We had them done overnight and delivered to On Military Matters around noon
on Friday. By 5pm the Convention Director told us to take
them off or be removed from the Vendor Hall. The several
vendors wearing them complied. As background, OMM has been
a vendor since the very first Historicon at the Ramada on
the Washington Beltway 25 years ago. As both a HMGS member
and a vendor I am tired of the BOD not taking into account
member and vendor requests. The T-shirt was a 'free speech'
attempt to have them listen to us (vendors), the results speak for themselves.

Dennis Shorthouse