dalekboy: (Soaped Monkeys Of Fandom!)
dalekboy ([personal profile] dalekboy) wrote2008-03-26 03:13 pm

Irrelevance to the new fen

This post is taken from a bunch of replies on a friend's journal, that it was decided we should stop hijacking and move the discussion somewhere else.

The problem is that a lot of fans want to get along, and many longer term fans don't like change, so the old fans don't change and the new fans try to fit in. The newer folks aren't encouraged to exptress their ideas, and fans have always been good at shouting down those they see as wrong.

I tend to think that when one is well-known and respected in the scene, they have a responsibilty to the newer folks to keep an open mind and to give them the chance to express themselves.

For instance, I have the newer people in Melbourne saying they don't see the point of having fan guests. I disagree with their opinion, but respect and understand that if they feel that way, then many more new folks will as well. So I either need to justify why we do it well enough that they can see my point-of-view, or rethink having fan guests in order to be relevant to the newer folks.

Though that said, I think the fan guest issue is a tiny one compared to how magnificently irrelevant our style of cons currently are to the new crop of fans.

New fans aren't coming to cons. They see them as over-priced, they don't see that they will get any value for money, and when they do come along, they have a hard time making friends because they're shy and because many of us are shy, we're more comfy talking to people we already know.

And then they hear us slagging off 'mundanes' and similarly showing fandom's intolerance for those not like themselves. So to new folks we come across as more exclusive than inclusive.

So discuss... and especially if you're one of the newer fans, please, please, please speak up and tell us what you'd like to see at cons, and what you think needs to be changed.

[identity profile] dalekboy.livejournal.com 2008-03-27 04:44 am (UTC)(link)
Some of the feedback we got on the Continuums from first-timers and the new generation of fans alike suggested they felt that Fan Guest is little more than an "in-joke". That ousiders viewed it as something they were paying for that they didn't understand or appreciate.

These days there's a real push for value for money. Even if the punters don't like one of the guests, they will look at a pro as bang for their buck.

They look at a fan guest as something they're paying for that they don't want. This coupled with the fact that only people in the fan community will likely know the guest and their achievements, using the advertising space on flyers aimed at the general public can be seen as counter-productive.

and, to be brutally honest, once they've paid, it's too late for them to have second thoughts based solely on finding out about a non-pro as guest.

I don't agree with it, I believe in naming all the guests on a flyer, and that it's part of honouring the fan guest. But cons have to work as a business first, and maximise their appeal to the general public, hence me not fighting the decision when it was suggested.

Certainly, if I was made fan guest at a con, I wouldn't expect my name on the non-fandom advertising. I'm not a draw-card and the sapce is better used pushing those people and events that may draw in a new first timer.

[identity profile] smofbabe.livejournal.com 2008-03-27 04:53 am (UTC)(link)
Interesting. Thanks for providing anecdotal evidence, not that I didn't believe [livejournal.com profile] angriest.

I guess I just have a problem with saying that advertising should only include things that are likely to draw a newcomer. I think it should certainly include things that are likely to attract a newcomer, but I'm not sure I'd go all the way in the other direction and eliminate things that are standard convention features in order to woo them.

I'm curious as to whether this logic is applied to professional guests as well. People who are not devotees of Dr Who, for example, might not have ever heard of Rob Shearman. Does that mean that a con wouldn't mention that he was a guest in some publicity drives?

[identity profile] dalekboy.livejournal.com 2008-03-27 05:07 am (UTC)(link)
I don't remember if we did it, but we certainly talked about focused advertising for the Continuums.

So if our guests were a DW author, and an SF writer, when advertising them we would make the DW author the first and most prominent name when advertising in the DW and media community, and make the SF author more prominent when advertising to the more heavily lit-based community.

Three out of four Continuums had feedback forms, which really helped us shape our direction and find out what people wanted... and it also helped us to ignore the whingers :)

[identity profile] angriest.livejournal.com 2008-03-27 05:08 am (UTC)(link)
In Rob's case I was making a concerted effort to constantly refer to him as "Rob Shearman, writer for TV's Doctor Who" or somesuch, because the average SF reader may or may not have heard of Ken Macleod or Glenda Larke, but *everybody* has heard of Doctor Who.