Regarding event profits, in the for-profit world of concert promotions, the break even point is set at 80% of expected attendance. In some cases, this means a sell out of the venue, in other cases, it is only a portion of the total capacity of a given venue. Just something to consider.
Now factor in the elasticity of demand, competing events, weather and travel, and other factors and running any SCA event is a risk for what is traditionally a risk averse culture when it comes to event planning. Take out the profit motivation of a private corporation, and there is usually a minimal amount of reward for extended risk.
The Mudthaw I ran two years ago, I kept the event costs minimal, with a break even number of 650. Annually, Mudthaw averages 720 people over the last 5-6 years. That includes children. So my 650 break even figure was just over 90% of "average" attendance. As luck would have it, we had over 770 people attend as the weather was perfect.
Before any other costs, the site alone was over $5,500. Add to that some additional costs, and my budget was pushed very thin, but I was still able to keep the cost per attendee to $10/adult.
Some creative solutions were found to such things as dayboard. I eliminated it as a cost savings measure and instead had food vendors. Yes, it was not ideal, but again, it was a way to keep costs down. With a potential swing of +/-20% of attendees, that equates to 815 as a max and 520 as a low, meaning a potential difference of 295 people.
Now getting back to the original crux of your question, family cap... Had I thought about it, I would have set one, but it was not something that was discussed and no one brought forth the idea. Personally, I think its a great idea, especially when event costs are fixed costs and not variable based on attendance.
"Now getting back to the original crux of your question, family cap... Had I thought about it, I would have set one, but it was not something that was discussed and no one brought forth the idea. Personally, I think its a great idea, especially when event costs are fixed costs and not variable based on attendance."
exactly, if most of the event costs are fixed costs, will it actually cost the event additional expenses (other than dayboard) to let some children in free? What about the lost revenue for families that decide to stay home because they can't afford to bring their three kids and cant find/afford a babysitter? One could almost argue that the revenue lost by instituting a family cap could be recouped by the increased attendance to the event by families.
And site fees vary a lot. While you paid $5,500 for the Mudthaw site, I am pretty sure that the site that Ostgardr uses for Warriors Nadaam is only $300. Both charge a $10 adult entry fee day trip ($14 for camping and kids under 14 no camp fee which is way cool). Now the ostgardr site is more primitive so there must be additional expenses that are included in your mudthaw site fee. I also heard that Northern Region Warcamp only pays $500 site fee, with a $10 daytrip, $20 camping, and a $30/$60 family cap. Even though Mudthaw is a BIG event, I still don't know how you managed to keep a $10 site fee. That is a miracle.
Now factor in the elasticity of demand, competing events, weather and travel, and other factors and running any SCA event is a risk for what is traditionally a risk averse culture when it comes to event planning. Take out the profit motivation of a private corporation, and there is usually a minimal amount of reward for extended risk.
The Mudthaw I ran two years ago, I kept the event costs minimal, with a break even number of 650. Annually, Mudthaw averages 720 people over the last 5-6 years. That includes children. So my 650 break even figure was just over 90% of "average" attendance. As luck would have it, we had over 770 people attend as the weather was perfect.
Before any other costs, the site alone was over $5,500. Add to that some additional costs, and my budget was pushed very thin, but I was still able to keep the cost per attendee to $10/adult.
Some creative solutions were found to such things as dayboard. I eliminated it as a cost savings measure and instead had food vendors. Yes, it was not ideal, but again, it was a way to keep costs down. With a potential swing of +/-20% of attendees, that equates to 815 as a max and 520 as a low, meaning a potential difference of 295 people.
Now getting back to the original crux of your question, family cap... Had I thought about it, I would have set one, but it was not something that was discussed and no one brought forth the idea. Personally, I think its a great idea, especially when event costs are fixed costs and not variable based on attendance.
Reply
exactly, if most of the event costs are fixed costs, will it actually cost the event additional expenses (other than dayboard) to let some children in free? What about the lost revenue for families that decide to stay home because they can't afford to bring their three kids and cant find/afford a babysitter? One could almost argue that the revenue lost by instituting a family cap could be recouped by the increased attendance to the event by families.
And site fees vary a lot. While you paid $5,500 for the Mudthaw site, I am pretty sure that the site that Ostgardr uses for Warriors Nadaam is only $300. Both charge a $10 adult entry fee day trip ($14 for camping and kids under 14 no camp fee which is way cool). Now the ostgardr site is more primitive so there must be additional expenses that are included in your mudthaw site fee. I also heard that Northern Region Warcamp only pays $500 site fee, with a $10 daytrip, $20 camping, and a $30/$60 family cap. Even though Mudthaw is a BIG event, I still don't know how you managed to keep a $10 site fee. That is a miracle.
Reply
Leave a comment