You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree that right now that guest-wise they're not close to NYCC and it would do them good to do the above suggestions that have to with event planning. I can't be too harsh on them for raising prices -- hasn't SDCC raised prices 3 of the past 4 years? (Including a $105 to $150-$175 jump for 4 day passes without/with PN from 2011-2012) Their attendance formula sounds transparent enough -- organizers have said that the attendance formula is based on X tickets sold + 0.5x estimated kids. How is that not transparent? Whether or not SLCC had that many kids show up is a different issue. That's a more transparent formula than CCI who gives no ticket sales numbers, no formula, and vague estimations for their shows. Also, after the first show the big banner on their page said "50,000 tickets sold". They then announced an estimated 70-80,000 people, so I figured the rest were kids/exhibitors/etc.
What I meant by saying that I think SLCC is the best chance we have at giving SDCC competition is not that it's there now, but that it has the most potential to be the next "buzz" con. I could tell from the first few months after announcing they would create a show that SLCC was not messing around. They'd already created enormous momentum for their first show. They reached big numbers quickly, a key factor in getting big guests for future shows. They have the city and state fully behind them (the governor even met Stan Lee at the tarmac for the first show). They have the ability to take over the downtown and beyond during con weekend, like SDCC does -- and in my mind this is VERY important. It'll be easy for Salt Lake as the city already has experience with this, during Sundance. Emerald City, Denver, and Phoenix could also have this ability (Emerald City was making great strides towards this in 2012 but IMO took a step backwards in 2013)...NYCC does not, SF not really, I don't think Anaheim does either as it's overshadowed by Disney.
I would rather have not seen the SLCC vs. SDCC catfight just yet -- but SLCC got swept into it when CCI chose to single them out in the lawsuit, so I can't fault them too much. CCI is going at it from a completely wrong angle. If they want to attempt to trademark "Comic Con" then I would welcome their attempt as SDCC is the original and most prestigious, but as I understand it, to protect your brand you are legally obligated to defend it against ALL known infringements. You can't pick and choose which unaffiliated organizations are deserving of being allowed to use "Comic Con."
I agree that right now that guest-wise they're not close to NYCC and it would do them good to do the above suggestions that have to with event planning. I can't be too harsh on them for raising prices -- hasn't SDCC raised prices 3 of the past 4 years? (Including a $105 to $150-$175 jump for 4 day passes without/with PN from 2011-2012) Their attendance formula sounds transparent enough -- organizers have said that the attendance formula is based on X tickets sold + 0.5x estimated kids. How is that not transparent? Whether or not SLCC had that many kids show up is a different issue. That's a more transparent formula than CCI who gives no ticket sales numbers, no formula, and vague estimations for their shows. Also, after the first show the big banner on their page said "50,000 tickets sold". They then announced an estimated 70-80,000 people, so I figured the rest were kids/exhibitors/etc.What I meant by saying that I think SLCC is the best chance we have at giving SDCC competition is not that it's there now, but that it has the most potential to be the next "buzz" con. I could tell from the first few months after announcing they would create a show that SLCC was not messing around. They'd already created enormous momentum for their first show. They reached big numbers quickly, a key factor in getting big guests for future shows. They have the city and state fully behind them (the governor even met Stan Lee at the tarmac for the first show). They have the ability to take over the downtown and beyond during con weekend, like SDCC does -- and in my mind this is VERY important. It'll be easy for Salt Lake as the city already has experience with this, during Sundance. Emerald City, Denver, and Phoenix could also have this ability (Emerald City was making great strides towards this in 2012 but IMO took a step backwards in 2013)...NYCC does not, SF not really, I don't think Anaheim does either as it's overshadowed by Disney. I would rather have not seen the SLCC vs. SDCC catfight just yet -- but SLCC got swept into it when CCI chose to single them out in the lawsuit, so I can't fault them too much. CCI is going at it from a completely wrong angle. If they want to attempt to trademark "Comic Con" then I would welcome their attempt as SDCC is the original and most prestigious, but as I understand it, to protect your brand you are legally obligated to defend it against ALL known infringements. You can't pick and choose which unaffiliated organizations are deserving of being allowed to use "Comic Con."
Did you go to the show? Momentum, numbers, and slick graphics are one thing, but does the show live up to the self-generated "buzz"? I think that is the question here.
We might have to agree to disagree on this one- imo, cci didn't really have a choice. personally i don't think it's abt the use of 'comic con', lots of other conventions use "comic con" but they don't attempt to conflate their con's with CCI's conventions. To my mind that is the crux of the matter. It's a matter of protecting CCI's brand.For example & I usually get into a lot of hot water when i argue by analogy, if you owned & put on an event for years. Another group started doing the same type of event with a logo close to yours & was not clear that they were a different organization. Would you feel the need to separate yourself from them in the public eye? To my mind that's closer to what's going on then the law suite abt teh words 'comic con'
For the record I'm not opposed at all to the idea of CCI making it clear that it's not associated with sLcc (or any con with any other unaffiliated con) but I still think a lawsuit over the name is not the right way to go about it especially when there are dozens of cons with a similar name. I actually think they'd have a much stronger case if the C&D had originally been against their logo. Do you think their main reason for filing the lawsuit was less about using the term "Comic Con" itself and more about public disassociation? That's an interesting theory. But if that's the case, I think it would have been simpler and less costly (not to mention less dramatic) to just issue a statement.
No, I did not. Did you? I'm basing what I'm saying on observations, stats, numbers, posts, marketing, anecdotes, word of mouth, etc as compared to that of other cons I haven't been to.
hikanteki- I had a booth at both SLCC shows and I have one at SDCC most years. I also do cons all over the country professionally and have for decades. I have no problem saying that as a vendor and in my professional opinion, SLCC was without a doubt the absolute worst run and most unprofessional con I have ever attended or sold at. I am not alone in this opinion as a vendor. This show has potential because of the huge crowds it can draw but they will need to make major changes very quickly or it will just be a rolling repeating nightmare to sell at.
I will officially raise both middle fingers and invite the whole damn event to kiss my hind end. I'll be sure to charge a dollar per kiss, though
I did not, but have been actively monitoring the feedback on their FB and in the blogs. I didn't ask you that question in a condescending tone, so I apologize of it came off that way. I really do. I was generally trying to understand what prompted you to make the statement:"What I meant by saying that I think SLCC is the best chance we have at giving SDCC competition is not that it's there now, but that it has the most potential to be the next "buzz" con. I could tell from the first few months after announcing they would create a show that SLCC was not messing around. They'd already created enormous momentum for their first show. They reached big numbers quickly, a key factor in getting big guests for future shows. "Buzz is one thing, and SLCC has generated a ton, but is the PRODUCT they are putting out worthy of the buzz and the numbers they are getting? And how many of those free tickets they gave away contribute to the positive buzz? Even more so, how does the fact that SLCC is partnered with both a Salt Lake news station AND their major newspaper play into their coverage? Is the "buzz" really coming from attendees, or from glowing reports from their partner stations? That's why I asked if you attended. I wanted to know if what they are pumping out is worth all the media frenzy currently around this show? Or is it all just self-promotion?
When you read the C&D letter sent, I think it mentions on several occasions that SDCC is concerned about the confusion of people mistaking SLCC as part of the SDCC family of events. In particular they mention that SLCC has tried to purposefully confuse attendees (the car, the use of comic-con without putting "Salt Lake" in front of the name, etc.) and trade off the Comic-Con name to get more exhibitors, attendees, and sponsorship. I don't think it has anything to do with the name itself, which is why they are only going after SLCC. I think SLCC is intentionally blurring the lines between the two events to get more business and SDCC would be fine if they used any other name (Salt Lake Comics Fest, Salt Lake Comic Convention, Salt Lake Super Show, whatever). At least that is the way I read the C&D, but I'm sure it is subjective and I can't read the minds of the folks at Comic-Con
MLM scams and bunyon treatment booths took up space, big promo trucks were parked in front of and blocking booths, and things like wrestling rings and loud stages made conducting business impossible in whole sections of the floor. It was, in short, a vendor nightmare.That said, I will do it, and I will try to work with them to try to get some of the issues dealt with because they will absolutely collapse this event in time if they don't, and I will fight to stay in a similar location. If I end up in the crappy alcove at the back of the hall or any other type of location which I have nightmares about, I will be kicking myself and swearing at myself for having subjected myself to it. I want this event to succeed for the reasons I've stated previously so I'm willing to put one more year into it with the understanding that I'm making myself a willing dupe in the situation. I may make money again, but I may land flat on my butt and angry as hell, in which case, Utahn or not, I will officially raise both middle fingers and invite the whole damn event to kiss my hind end. I'll be sure to charge a dollar per kiss, though, so I can fit in with the level and theme of some of the off topic vendors that were scattered around the exhibit hall floor. :P