Yeah, I'm weird that way...

But seriously, knowing why you're going to a con is the key thing. Don't go "just because." Go with a plan and have a way of evaluating if the plan works. That evaluation shouldn't just be dollars and cents, either. Hell, you could sell nothing but network like crazy and that might be a fantastic show for you. Just don't go for the sake of going. There's no point in that whatsoever.

Von

Yeah, I could see that. It's very much a matter of "your mileage may vary." Cons, I think by their very nature, are pretty organic. And they certainly do work for some exhibitors really, really well.

I was actually a bit disappointed with the lack of comraderie with the people around us...but I'll save that thought for later on in another post...

Von

Nah, I don't mind sharing...but I'll save the specifics of what we did for the next post.

I think the big thing is that Comicon (which does SDCC as well as APE and Wondercon and I think a few others) doesn't independently audit the attendance numbers. I also don't think they survey the attendees to get a sense of who came into APE planning on spending money and who came out having spent money. So all anyone can do is really play with benchmark numbers and make assumptions. There's absolutely nothing to hang one's hat on.

This is a problem since it's difficult to know a few things: how accurate are the attendance numbers? If 4200 people showed up, then great. But what if only 3300 people showed up? That changes everything but exhibitors will never know. Not good. Communication and transparency - as exhibitors, we need both. Really, we're getting neither.

On top of it, artists wind up competing with one another instead of working with one another. I'll have more on this in my next post, but there's nothing like the Trilogy Tour to create more of a sense of community. Call me an old softy, but I'm not a fan of the flea market type mentality. It's feast or famine and I don't really think that is a healthy way of displaying and selling art.

I actually didn't go to APE to earn money. We sold exactly zero at our table - everything was a giveaway. If I had gone to APE to sell stuff and hopefully make money, though, I would seriously consider the numbers I posted.

Von

It's actually not that I don't believe them. In the post above I take them as gospel truth. I'll be a bit surprised if it turns out that more than 4200 people walked into The Concourse for APE but that's only because everyone thought the attendance was down from the year before. And APE claimed in the program book that 4800 people attended the 2006 edition. So, if it's down a bit from last year, then my number of 4200 seems about right.

The numbers I ran would be more chilling if I had assumed they were wrong. But to be clear: I don't. It would just be nice to have a third party audit the numbers so we'd know categorically that they're accurate. That's all. :)

Von

Definitely. It's coming!

Von

...but you also miss a point of conventions

Actually, I didn't. But that's going to be in a separate post entirely from this one. There's only so much text I want to ask people to read in one shot. I'll get into the grass roots thing in the next post and, at that point, you can see what you think.

It's also not about "making" money. It can be, but I view it slightly differently. It's about two separate issues - managing how much money you can afford to spend on a con (on the one hand) and what you expect to get out of a con (on the other hand). That latter bit doesn't have to be financial, of course. There's way more to it than that. But money does enter into it. Costs are costs.

Let's be concrete, though. I ain't made of money (with three kids, I suspect you aren't, either). There's only so many dollars Moggy and I can afford to pitch at a con. We generally justify 'em from the point of view of a vacation, so it kinda washes out in the end. Many cartoonists do these shows, though, hoping to earn money. That's not a crass thing - that's a putting food on the table thing. I think, too often, cons are done "just because." Those same dollars might better be spent in another way (say directly mailing retailers, as one example). How each individual exhibitor chooses to do that is ultimately up to them. A con should be evaluated pragmatically and cooly and never seen as a panacea.

By the by: I don't think you meant to, but you kinda came across as smugly superior here. No harm, no foul...but I could feel my back going up.

Von

Like I said, it's no biggee. I didn't think you meant it to come across that way. I'm just a sensitive Canadian! :)

I'm hoping to get the next post up tomorrow so we'll see what you think after that.

Von

This I agree with. I actually say that I don't think the numbers are accurate. We'll never know exactly what people have to spend, so this type of breakdown falls apart if there's a debate over exactly how much people have in their pockets. If, instead of it being only $62,530.00 it's $200,000.00 then the entire game changes.

You're right about the ticket revenue comment, too. I was actually going somewhere else with that but, since I didn't, they wind up coming across as a bit out of place. I might tinker with that a bit more, too. Ah, the interweb - always a work in progress!

Fundamentally, I think it comes down to whether you feel the glass is half empty or half full. Based on what I saw at the con ('course, I can't prove any of this) I believe it's half empty, at least for APE. For another take on this, though, check out Andrew Farago's comments. He and I chatted about it in the comments and he had an interesting point down near the end. He relates an anecdote from Charles Brownstein (head of the CBLDF) about APE. I'll be curious to know what you think about it.

Von

Hey Jackie,

Fair point and one of the reasons why I took the attendance claims at face value. Though I'd still prefer a third party to look 'em over (I'm particular that way!) I do have a sneaking suspicion that the numbers may be inflated by exhibitors themselves. I have 357 exhibitors listed but that certainly doesn't include friends, loved ones, and whatnot who probably came by to help man the booth. In my case, neither Jason or Moggy are listed with me. So while I'm only one exhibitor, we actually had three people at our table. Since each table could have 4 badges, then we could be looking at 1428 "exhibitors." That could place the real attendance figures under 3000. But really, we don't know.

I was actually disappointed with the networking to be honest (I go into that a lot more in the other post). What's worse is that I don't find our APE experiences any different than our SPX ones. You and Batton have a major advantage - you have books out and your both extremely well-known. For us, it's really different. And I think the dollars we spend at the cons could be better used in another way. My conclusion with all of this is starting to become clear: cons are good if you are known and books underneath you. But as a way of establishing yourself and building up awareness, they are not so good.

Now, that said there were many positive things (including spending a lot of time with Rory on Monday). And as a vacation it was fun. But from a crass marketing point of view? Not so much...

Please, though, read the other post. I'm really curious to hear what your thoughts are.

Thanks!

Von

Heya,

I'm really talking about my experiences in particular and I hate to advise you one way or the other. I guess all I can really say is this: take a peek at all four articles and then see what you think. In the comments field there are definitely widely different opinions and you should examine those closely, too. Plus your own research, of course. Then, whatever your decision about Motor City or other cons is, at least it will be as informed as possible.

Von

My suspicion is exhibitors and their tablemates inflate the attendance numbers rather than the other way around, but I take your point. Unless someone from Comic Con itself chimes in, though, we'll never know. All we know is that the 2006 attendance was listed in the 2007 program book as 4800 people.

If there were 338 tables at last year's show (I haven't counted but it could be exactly the same as this year's), that gives us anywhere from a low of 3448 paid attendance (4800-(338*4) - therefore not including exhibitors and their mates) to a high of 6152 (4800+(338*4) - including exhibitors and their mates).

That's one helluva range.