Paying to vote in the Hugos: why it has to happen, and why we should acknowledge that.

[seanan_mcguire]

All right: we're getting some semi-heated discussion about the idea of a "Voting Membership" for the Hugo Awards. This proposal assumes the following

Comments

[ext_355539]

If the only difference between Supporting Membership and Voting Membership is all that mailing and program and not particularly necessary stuff to anyone who is not a full on collector, then why not just push for an over all lower Supporting membership with an Opt-In and cost for receiving all the ephemera? It'd be easier to do, in fact, changing of only one word in the WSFS rules and constitution would make this extremely easy. That word is paper.

[seanan_mcguire]

Ayup.

[thedragonweaver]

Personally, I find the current value of a Supporting Membership to be quite awesome-and I say that as someone who was too darned broke to purchase one this year. If the stars align I shall purchase one next year.

FWIW, I am far more pleased at the short fiction being included than the novels, because once the ephemera (magazines and suchlike) are out of their publication month, they are extremely difficult to find. In years prior to the packet being offered, the chance I would have even seen one of the short fiction pieces was minimal, let alone reading enough to make me feel as though I were competent to vote in the whole category. And I feel that the voter's packet is an introduction to new authors. The 2011 packet introduced me to Mira Grant (and Seanan McGuire by the backdoor), as well as N.K. Jemisin. I can anecdotally state that the "free" works in the packet gave me the opportunity to support the authors therein, and when I have more free cash, I'll buy the novels that were in the packet, instead of just the sequels. (It's a

[seanan_mcguire]

As do I. I love the diversity of the packet, and I like the price point.

[archangelbeth]

...would there be enough extra funds, I wonder, to pay some small amount to the publishers, and thus ameliorate the "losing money" fears from them? (I have people distracing me, but if I don't type something then I won't ...thing, noun, verb.)

[seanan_mcguire]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.

If money enters the equation, it will not be enough to balance costs, and the publishers become a lot more likely to pull out.

[archangelbeth]

Drat.

[serge_lj]

"...The Hugos, like everything else about Worldcon, are a volunteer organization..."

It's been interesting, being involved, although mostly with the Ceremony itself, although as an usher until last year, when my contribution was very much in sight. Remember the Display?

[seanan_mcguire]

I do! It was lovely.

[palatinate]

As has been commented on the earlier thread, the cost of Supporting Membership has just come down following a change to the Constitution. (Without getting into too much detail, you could only have the initial Attending rate as a certain multiplier of the Supporting, and as other changes made us need higher initial Attending rates, the Supporting was rising). Most of the Worldcon runners were uncomfortable with the drift from $40 (the standard a decade ago) up to $50 and then (for Texas this year) $60. We put that right and for 2014 and 2015 you can buy a Supporting membership - including Hugo voting and Packet if available - for $40 again. That's actually the same in real terms as the $25 we charged for Supporting in 1990, years before the Packet ever existed

[bookuniverse]

To what extent would lower copy-count on paper publications reduce ad revenue? This was the big thing I've heard as a reason NOT to make Program Books and such an optional thing: the people (publishers, other cons, etc.) buying the ad-space wanted their ads to go to the WHOLE membership. Example: if total WorldCon membership is 5,000 (attending and supporting), but publications are changed to be an "add-on" expense, they may only get half that number (or less) opting for paper. Would they have to lower ad rates if the ads were only going to 2,000 of those members?

[teroyks]

The publications would (as I've understood the proposed changes) still go to all members, just not necessarily on paper; those who choose electronic publications would still get the ads in them (at least I expect the content to be the same on both). In this way, a supporting membership with electronic publications is (IMO) better than just a voting membership without any publications.

[palatinate]

The understanding is that yes, ad rates would probably have to go down. Publishers and others will generally pay less for online and PDF ads than print ads.

Of course, we already have an "electronic vs. paper" choice on progress reports so we're only talking about the Program Book here. Typically the Program Book costs $20,000 - $25,000 to print for around 5,000 copies, and brings in around $20,000 in advertising. BUT then you have mailing costs as well, for supporters and no-shows.

If we made this change, we'd need to look at the overall budget impact on printing, advertising income, and mailing costs, and then we could look at how much we could reduce the rates by. My guess is that for supporters it might be $5. (Souvenir Book print & mail for one person is about $7 on average, from a rough calculation; reduce this a bit for the lost ads).