From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Pennsic prices
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:05:47 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <k!zn=tl.dani@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt):
>[Responds at length to the effect that many of the itemized Pennsic
>expenses could have been done without or aren't very expensive, or
>aren't needed in the West.]
>
>All true, but so what?  

'So what' is about three things.  First off, it provides some analysis
of how to run (and what's needed to run) to single largest SCA
activity there is.  I don't do a lot of autocratting--let alone for
large events, but I'd like to understand the requirements better than
I do and I'm gaining that understanding by comparing and constrasting
those requirements to what I know of events I *have* been to.
Secondly, there's the ever present interest in what we so kindly know
as Inter-Kingdom Anthropology.  A noticible fraction of the items
listed arise from differences in how various kingdoms conduct there
normal operations--as evinced in what sort of equipment is normally
kept on hand.  Third is--one should *always* question both need and
magnitude of expenses.  This is especially true when spending Someone
Else's Money.  My Lady Wife went to Pennsic this year.  We simply
checked the appropriate documents and budgeted the site fee.  I'm not
questioning the legitimacy of the fee, but rather trying to figure out
where it's going, and (in some cases) why it's felt that the expense
is justified.  I'm categorically *not* doing this to be nasty or claim
that one area of the SCA is superior to another.  Pennsic is clearly a
run-away success as an event.  No other SCA event regularly draws as
much as 1/3 as many people.

>These aren't expenditures that are being made because
>the people at Pennsic are fond of spending money or are afraid of the sun.

Good.  I didn't think they were.

>They're being made because twenty Pennsics' accumulated experience shows that
>they're worth making.  And they add up to enough that nobody's getting rich
>from the site fees. 

Likewise, I'm sure.

>>>Rented tents for the troll, 
>>
>>There is a permanent gate-house at the site entrance.
>
>And if there were a permanent gate-house at this site entrance there'd
>be no need for those tents.  What's your point?

My point is a comparison.  I seem to recall seeing a picture of a
permanent building at the entrance to the Pennsic site.  I may be
mistaken.  As noted in other comments, the West owns a sunshade for
use at sites where there is no shelter at a site entrance.  Clearly,
permanent ownership of such shelter isn't felt to be a need by either
the East or the Middle--so there is the immediate expense of renting a
tent.  However--when spread across 8,000 people--that's a *very* small
expense (or should be).

>>>archery fields, 
>>
>>A rented tent for this?  Why?
>
>Archery's a good example of an activity whose expenses (tent, targets, etc.)
>may seem unnecessary if you ignore the scale.  The target range alone (there's
>also the clout range) involves six to twelve targets being shot at all day,
>every day for a week.  (And remember, rain is as likely as sun.)

Actually, I don't think I'm ignoring scale--such costs will scale with
population.  They'll also tend to be higher for wars than for other
events.  Is it your point that the scaling is non-linear?

>>>More tents for Arts and Sciences classes.  
>>
>>We have lots of folks with suitable shelter for classes--and if a call
>>is made for volunteered space, sufficient is found.
>
>Again, consider the scale.  One of the sub-activities at Pennsic is
>a week-long university.  We're not talking about finding shelter for a
>class or few, but about finding shelter for several classes, all day,
>every day for a week.  It could be done, but it's just not worth the
>problems of coordinating such an effort (let alone making sure that
>people can find their classes when they need to).

This is a good point--that in this case, the scale causes a
qualitative difference, not merely a quantitative one.  Has anyone
considered putting out a call to find out if anyone has extra shelter
that can be used for some classes, so that not all class sequences
need to have rental shelter?  I'm not claiming this a solution, just
wondering if this has been *considered* at all.

>>Hodl it!  *Pennsic* is paying the electric bill? 
>
>Like running water, privies, etc., the money is coming out of the forty-odd
>dollars per person of site fees.  It's the total fee that was being questioned.
>So yes, Pennsic is paying the bill.  Is it important whether the utilities
>are a separate line item for us or part of the expenses the Coopers pay out
>of their share of the site fees?

The contrast/comparison I was making is that to list this as an item
*separate* from the per head per night fee indicates (to me) that it
is an added costs that properly belongs bundled into the camping
fee--of which it is logically part and should be striclty, linearly,
proportional to the number of campers present.  If the camping fee
were comparable to the one I know of from our long Beltane, I might
see this issue in a different light.  Not only am I being told that
the individual camping fee is 4 times what we paid (and higher on the
final weekend), but that the area is economically depressed--which
*should* (as I risk comment from Cariadoc . . .) reduce the cost.

>>Seeing what you consider nice-to-have, I wonder if you should check to see 
>>if it would be cost-effective to buy some of these things even if they're
>>only used once a year.
>
>"Nice to have"...  Why so patronizing?  Do you suppose the people running 
>Pennsic to be incapable of doing arithmetic, or do you suppose them to be
>too decadent to put up with the inconveniences of camping?  

Nice-to-have things are where you examine a budget if budgets are
tight.  If no one is protesting the site fees at Pennsic, or if the
site fees are set deliberately set high to curb growth, then there is
no need to budget tightly.  There is also the factor that what is "nice
to have" to one person is a vital neccesity to another.

>As alternatives,
>let me suggest that
>
>-- The size and scope make a qualitative difference.  There comes a point
>	at which it becomes impractical to scale up normal-event solutions.

This is a very good point.  If this is the case--and it probably
is--at what size does this become an issue at SCA events?  The
qualitative change make take place at different sized events in
different areas, but knowing where to look for it would probably make
life far less hectic for those autocratting large and growing events.
So far, we know it generally lies somewhere between 1200 and 7500,
since the West has had events without seeing that problem that at
least amrginally exceed 1200 and last year's Pennsic exceeded 7500 and
no one seems to think that this year's event was logisitically
different.

>-- The climate makes a qualitative difference.  Daytimes can be very hot and
>	very humid, nights can get within shouting distance of freezing, and
>	rains are probable.  You have to plan on the assumption that most
>	activities will be held during bad weather.

We've had snow on events.  We've had freezing nights.  Has anyone at
Pennsic gotten up in to morning to a 1/4 inch of ice on the top of a
pot of water?  I agree with the humidity of eastern summers--I've been
in Washington, DC in August and that's worse than Pennsylvania.
At this years West-An Tir War we had violent storms on three of the
four days people were there.  Fortunately they were short--about 20
minutes.  Fighting on the Firday was halted by the Chirurgeon in
charge because we had lightning striking the surrounding hills and no
reason to expect it to stay there.  At Ducal, this year, the weather
(while rather humid) was cooler than it has been in past years--it
never got above the low 90s (we've had it run up to 114).  Since we
camp a lot, we have to be prepared for just about anything.  The only
difference is that Pennsic is likely to get it on successive days.

>-- And yes, the fact that most of the special equipment is needed only
>	once a year, instead of regularly, does mean that Pennsic has 
>	far less 'capital equipment' upon which to draw.

Granted.  That accounts for a chunk of the budget the Autocrat has.
The qualitative, non-scaling effects account for some more of it.  The
rest ought to scale with the size of the event.  Perhaps someone
closer to the running of the event can provide a rough breakout of
these various areas.  This still leaves the direct site costs.  Is
Pennsylvania that much more expensive than California?  One would tend
to think the reverse to be true.  Or is it that the eastern kingdoms
are used to and/or demand more in the way of on-site amenities than
are common in the west?

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare