murder on leather shoes....and if you fall down...well, that's no good...nobody will want to help you up.

HUZZAH! Zenin's back!

Please tell me more about how I'm dumb and don't understand things, pleaseohpleaseohplease!

Zenin, an honest question- do you intend to be this condescending, or is it accidental? Because I hope you understand that when you say things like

Quoted from "Zenin"
A common misunderstanding of the dynamics at work in event planning.

and

Quoted from "Zenin"
News flash:

anything else you might say, even if it's right on the money and could be incredibly helpful to the topic at hand, just goes right out the window of anyone reading. Being condescending will never help your communication; will not get your point across.

Of course I'm assuming that you do want to get a point across, because if you don't care about that, why bother posting at all?

yes. - did you miss the past Zenin craziness? He's just an attention whore. Not much different than a lot of yehoodites in that way, just way more annoying, but also entertaining in a pull up the chair and grab some popcorn kind of way.

I'm excited to see what this return of Zenin will bring. Please, continue...

Bryn, please show me where in my posts I disagree with anything you've written (I don't think you can because I agree with you).

Zenin is funny because he posts as though nobody else in the world could possibly be smart enough to understand the genius he is about to lay on all of us. He gives us the gift of his wisdom, because lord knows there is no way in the world any of us could have ever even considered the brilliant information that comes out of his brain. And I'm oh so grateful. Because, being an event coordination professional, whatever would I do without him? I mean, my whole career would be ruined without his posts! Thank you Zenin!!! :roll:

Ah, I see. Thank you so much Shana. Let me go find a thread where I can tell you something about math or science or whatever the hell it is you do so I can be just as good to you as you and Zenin have been to me.

Quoted from "mouth"
Let me go find a thread where I can tell you something about math or science or whatever the hell it is you do so I can be just as good to you as you and Zenin have been to me.

No, that's not necessary. Zenin and I both know and completely understand everything. But it's the thought that counts, right?

I know better than to argue with you, mouth. I was talking to Zenin.

Granted, I should also know better than to talk to Zenin.

Quoted from "bryn"
I'd say Zenin's partially right. People are much more likely to attend an event if other people (especially their friends or people they want to dance with) are going. But it's far from being the only factor at work.

Agreed. However it is a significant factor, often the most significant factor. Mouth was suggesting a simplistic economic theory model to the exclusion of psychological factors.

Quote
I've attended a few events I wasn't keen on just for the social factor (i.e. ALHC). But more often, I pick my events based on how well-designed they appear to be and how well they suit my interests. It works out in my favour that my friends tend to gravitate toward the same events. It's no surprise, seeing as I met those friends at other events, to which we were probably drawn for similar reasons. I have also attended many well-designed but poorly-attended events that have become increasingly popular over time. You may not succeed in drawing a big crowd your first year or two... but if it's a good event, they will eventually come (this is momentum).

I don't see how this is different: They likely didn't attend in the beginning because they didn't expect others to attend (among other factors, of course, such as additional word of (ahem) mouth). As time went on more expected more to attend and so more attended. A self-fulfilling prophecy, momentum.

Quote
If it's a crappy event, even if you drew a huge crowd the first time around, you're going to have a really tough time convincing people to come back.

But there's the kicker: What's a crappy event? If a huge crowd came...it's entirely likely they'll have a great time at an otherwise mediocre event. The event with a huge crowd doesn't have to be good, it just has to be there (and not go out of its way to ruin the group's good time). The attendees will still take away a feeling that the event was great (even if it was technically badly run).

And here's why: A significant factor in determining the quality of a social event is the sum of the quality of people who attend it. No, it's not the only factor, but it's a pretty darn big one. Large enough to frequently trump all others (for better or worse).

Quoted from "Keither"
Hey Zenin, How many events have you run? How many events have you been to?

Hundreds.

Keither, do you have a substantive counter argument to bring to the discussion? Do you agree or disagree that basic human psychology plays a significant role? Why? Do you have personal anecdotes on the subject that might enlighten discussion? Research references? Something? Or is this just another of your red herrings?

Thanks.

I'd just like to mention, though I know it won't make one iota of difference, that all of the people you're talking to right now are event organizers, as well as people who have travelled to and taken part in hundreds of swing dance events.

I get what you're saying... that swing dancers aren't any different from regular people and that there is basic human psychology at work here. I really get that. I've studied psychology too. And I'm not disputing that high attendance is an important factor in drawing registrations and a contributing factor in how well-received the event turns out to be.

BUT

You have to take into account that the sample has a particularly odd demographic distribution. The types of people who tend to attend swing dance events are not your average Joes. There's an incredibly high concentration of academics and other geeky types; The sorts of people who are likely to care about the configuration of the event itself.

I and Dave and Nicole and Shana and Keith and many other people on this board have spent years watching this in action. You, while you possess a wealth of knowledge and experience outside this arena, are newer to swing dancing and swing dance events and, thus, would benefit from spending more time observing before drawing your conclusions. It's what any wise anthropologist would do.

Quoted from "Shanabanana"

Quoted from "Zenin"
In simple terms, people will go to an event because they think other people are going to the event. They'll also avoid it for the inverse reason. Neither of which has anything to do with the quality of the event itself.

I want to reiterate what you don't understand here mouth. The quality of the event has no bearing on the "other" people who are going to the event. The reason that the first "other" people would decide to go to the event is as yet unknown. Not that we'd expect you to know anything about successful events...

I know that it's sometimes hard for people to understand sarcasm and so perhaps Zenin missed Shana's very good point in this post.

Also, I really enjoy stirring Zenin up. It's so entertaining.

So Zenin - do you have a response to this point? I mean, if people only go to events because other people are going, what inspires that first person to go? Someone has to say, "I'm going" before anyone else can decide to go because that person is. Right?

So what's the reason for the first person going who starts off the domino effect you claim is the ONLY reason events are successful?

Please to respond, thanks. :D

Quoted from "mouth"
So Zenin - do you have a response to this point? I mean, if people only go to events because other people are going, what inspires that first person to go? Someone has to say, "I'm going" before anyone else can decide to go because that person is. Right? So what's the reason for the first person going who starts off the domino effect you claim is the ONLY reason events are successful? Please to respond, thanks. :D

You've heard the term, "trend setter", I'm sure. Or someone or something which is a "draw" or is a "headliner".

Such catalysts are many, varied, and desperately sought after by all event organizers. It's a major the reason they seek and pay top dollar for "big names" to be part of their events: It's an implicit endorsement of the event. The community values the judgment of such particular people and thus their implicit endorsement of the event by agreeing to be a part of it can start that trend, that momentum. It's the reason stars make the money they do: It isn't for the work they do, no matter how great, it's for the influence their name/brand will have.

It's entirely possible to get that momentum moving without such a catalyst, it's just much more difficult and typically much slower. The advantage is that it's much cheaper. There's all kinds of creative ideas tried all the time to do this, mostly by productions with little or no budget (events, films, products, it's all the same) with varying levels of success.

Along with a lesson in basic psychology, we apparently need a lesson in marketing 101 as well?

Quoted from "mouth"
Ok so two questions: 1) How does a "star" get their "draw" or "headliner" status in the first place?

A somewhat different topic, but not all together distinct. At some point they get "discovered" by someone who has the clout to endorse them, vouch for them. It's one of the reasons why getting represented by a "star agent" can be so critical for a performer. Digging much deeper and you're into a chicken and egg argument. The reality is nothing ever starts from absolutely nothing, no one has ever made it to the top completely on their own and for most it has far less to do with their personal talent then it does the clout of those that endorsed and supported them along the way.

Quote
and 2) Using your reference to films, how do you explain a film with no "star power" being successful?

It first needs to be noted that the vast, vast majority of films without any staring talent aren't successful at any level. Not financially, not artistically. Something few that don't work in Hollywood are aware of is that the number of films that simply make it into a theater is a tiny fraction of the films the industry produces. Most are straight to video, TV, or foreign markets (or never get completed at all).

That said, I addressed the topic of the ones that do manage to succeed despite a weaker starting point:

Quoted from "Zenin"
It's entirely possible to get that momentum moving without such a catalyst, it's just much more difficult and typically much slower. The advantage is that it's much cheaper. There's all kinds of creative ideas tried all the time to do this, mostly by productions with little or no budget (events, films, products, it's all the same) with varying levels of success.

Quoted from "mouth"
So to recap, you believe that the quality of something has absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero to do with its success ever. Is that right?

No, not at all what I believe. Nor is it even remotely close to what I wrote.