LITACamp: How much would you pay?
Sun 7 Dec 2008, 9:06 pm
On Disruptive Library Technology Jester I found a mention of LITACamp, an unconference organized by the people at the Library and Information Technology Association, a division of the American Library Association.
It looks good: two days of conferencing (May 7 and 8) on the OCLC campus in Dublin, Ohio. They have lined up John Blyberg and Joan Frye Williams to provide keynotes for what appears to be otherwise a typical, participant-structured unconference.
It seems like there is a lot of potential for this to be a great event. But one slightly odd thing caught my eye: the registration fees.
The libray camps and unconferences that I have heard about up to now have been free or low-cost to attend. LITACamp is priced more like a typical ALA event: registration is $150 for LITA members, $210 for ALA Members, and $290 for non-members.
I’m going to try and keep my normal tendency to editorialize in check here. I certainly think there is more than one way to rock an unconference, and I’m not averse to people charging fees for them. I have sympathy for what Meredith Farkas says about Value in the online world. I have wondered before if “free” can work against a person wanting to travel to an unconference: that $150-$290 seems like something of a “guarantee” that LITACamp will be “serious” and worth traveling to, though in reality, it’s hard to see how the content of the LITACamp will be affected by the cost. And while it’s nice that they offer breakfast and lunch, it looks like most of the money will go straight to LITA.
For now I’ll just say that these registration fees seem unusual for an unconference, and I’m very curious to see how people react.
- License:
- File under: Conferences
- Tags: ala, librarycamp, lita, unconference
- Comments? 23
I have to agree. I want to see speakers paid, and costs recouped so that quality professional development can continue to be available to all of us. But this just seems expensive given the way unconferences and camps have worked up to this point. I dunno. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes.
Comment by jenica — December 8, 2008 @ 6:20 am
Thanks Jenica. As is customary these days the comments are pouring in on the FriendFeed entry for this post (partly because I begged) while remaining largely silent over here.
Comment by Steve Lawson — December 8, 2008 @ 10:09 am
It seems like a lot of money, and that’s only the cost of admission and doesn’t include all the travel people will have to pay for to get to this one-day event. I think it makes more sense for LITA (or any professional org) to offer an unconference at an already existing conference (like LITA Forum, ALA Midwinter/Annual, etc.) so that people don’t have to also travel JUST to be there.
Comment by Meredith — December 8, 2008 @ 11:20 am
I thought the same thing when I saw the post. I think that LITA is missing the point of an unconference/camp. From my perspective there should not be paid speakers, or any pre-planned speakers at all. The best thing about the library camp I attended was the feeling that there were no “stars” there. There is of course a lot to learn from Blyberg and Williamns, but to me that’s not what a camp is for. I go to unconferences for peer learning, for new ideas from unusual suspects, and definitely not to give money to relatively well-funded organizations to which I already pay membership dues.
So yes, it should be free, or damn cheap/voluntary donation.
One of these days I’ll write the post I’ve been thinking about on how librarians seem to get the concepts from the open source development world only to a limited degree. You can’t just paste them onto existing models (vendor relationships, conferences, etc.). There is a radical difference. (Sorry for digressing.)
Comment by Jenna — December 8, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
PS And it’s at OCLC? Aren’t these the same people who exploited librarian labor (and made them pay for the privilege) at their hackathon? Talk about not getting it. This looks to me like inviting a skilled focus group, but making the panelists pay to contribute, rather than the other way around.
btw, the one thing I didn’t like at LibraryCampNYC was the OCLC presence because it didn’t feel genuine.
Comment by Jenna — December 8, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Well, OCLC also played host to the Library/BarCamp Ohio (pix) a few months back…
OCLC donated the space & T-Mobile picked up the tab for shirts, food & stuff…
It was worth the drive from 17257.
Comment by Aaron the Librarian — December 10, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Actually, for Library/BarCampOhio, T-Mobile picked up the tab for lunch and the participants paid for the t-shirts and break snacks with the $25 registration fee. More details are in my summary of the event.
Comment by Peter Murray — December 11, 2008 @ 7:31 am
Jenna, I’m sorry that I didn’t see this post sooner. I helped organize the WorldCat Hackathon to which you refer, and I want to take exception to your depiction of it as OCLC exploiting librarian labor and making them pay for the privilege. First of all, we got nothing out of it ourselves except better exposure for our (free to OCLC member) services. The $30 fee was simply a nuisance fee to make sure those who signed up actually came. We provided all participants with breakfast and lunch both days, as well as a t-shirt. Thirty dollars doesn’t even begin to cover that, even disregarding all the other costs of the event.
Comment by Roy Tennant — January 14, 2009 @ 8:34 am
Another aside. When Bob Robertson-Boyd of OCLC and I were first considering the BarCampOhio/LibraryCampOhio concept, we debated whether or not to charge a fee. In the end, we decided to charge a nominal fee for the same reason OCLC did: we wanted a reasonable idea of how many people would actually attend. The sponsors covered the bulk of the costs, either with in-kind or real cash.
Comment by Peter Murray — January 14, 2009 @ 11:48 am
When I attended Library Camp of the West, breakfast was provided, and everyone who attended got an awesome LCOW mug (actually, I got two). Otherwise, attendance was free. When we did Library Camp Kansas, we provided food throughout the day & charged nothing for it. (Neither unconference had a problem with people not showing up.) So, why would I attend an unconference I have to pay for when I can attend one for free? What can you offer me that I can’t already get for free?
Comment by joshua m. neff — January 14, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Joshua, I realize people have a hard time believing that OCLC would do anything without charging for it, be we really did only do it to get a handle on attendance and encourage people to not sign up and then not show up. Frankly, if $30 is a barrier to your attendance at an unconference, then you likely can’t afford to get there in any event. Nonetheless, we were (and are) happy to waive the fee. Again, we just want people to come.
Comment by Roy Tennant — January 14, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Interesting to see y’all here today.
Here’s my own two cents: I think I’ll mostly steer clear of the Hackathon discussion, except to say that looking at the event announcement, it seems like people had plenty of information available beforehand to determine whether they thought it would be worth their time and money (assuming that the event went the way it was advertised, and at this point I have no reason to believe that it didn’t).
As for fees more generally, I wouldn’t begrudge an unconference for charging a relatively small fee. For me, as Dorothea said in the comments on FriendFeed it’s a matter of transparency. You want money to offset the food and the schwag so you don’t have to beg as many vendors? Or to pay keynote speakers? Or to make a profit? Or as a “nuisance fee” to ensure an accurate count in registration? And that fee is negotiable if I can’t afford it? When it comes to an unconference, I’ll want to know, and I’ll make my decision accordingly.
Comment by Steve Lawson — January 14, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Just caught this conversation thanks to a tip from Stephen Francouer. MPOW is working with Brooklyn College Library to host the LibCamp NYC this year, and we’re charging $25 — to essentially cover breakfast, lunch, wireless, and some take-away item. I guess it really comes down to what you consider a nominal fee. We’re experimenting with some free events this spring, and I’ve been told that people won’t come if it doesn’t cost anything. I disagree, but we’ll see what happens.
Comment by Jason — January 14, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Roy, I’m not saying $30 is too dear (although this year, it may very well be). I’m asking why I should pay $30 for something that I can get for free? That being said, I’m fine with chipping in to help defray the cost of the unconference. To be honest, I think charging a fee, even something small like $30, to make sure people actually show up is a bit weird, especially since, as I said, attendance hasn’t been a problem at the unconferences I’ve attended. Charging $290 to non-members of ALA? Total bullshit.
Comment by joshua m. neff — January 14, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Different countries must have very different cultures. The two library unconferences we organised here in Western Australia were fully subscribed and there were very few who did not turn up – and for reasons that having paid $30 beforehand would not have changed.
We had five libraries from five sectors each chip in to pay for morning tea, lunch, afternoon tea and a door prize. Another library provided venue and free wireless.
We could have charged $30 per head and provided the same. Personally I wouldn’t have minded paying that – *if I knew why*. But – I would want to also know that the organisers to have ensured they had done *everything* to keep the costs down beforehand.
Maybe instead of a “commitment fee” it would work to ask for some other kind of pre-commitment. Part of registration for our unconfs involves going to a wiki and putting your name down to do a job – either present, cut up fruit, do some accounting, collecting gourmet pizzas for lunch etc… People know that if they don’t turn up, part of the unconference will not run smoothly.
To me a $30 commitment fee smacks of the same logic that makes organisers charge large amounts to attend workshops – just so our funding bodies will think it’s legitimate, or we “value” what we learn. I think unconferences are an attempt to get away from this untransparent…as Josh says… bullshit.
Comment by Kathryn Greenhill — January 14, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
I should add that due to fire restrictions in the venue, we had to cap attendance at 100, and had people listed on a “waitlist” on the wiki.
Maybe that had an effect in making people “value” their place more??
Comment by Kathryn Greenhill — January 14, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
I really had no idea that a $30 attendance fee would raise so much ire. I will make sure we drop the fee for our next event. If we get a lot of no-shows, then we’ll know that a “nuisance fee” is in fact a good idea. But at least then we will have evidence upon which to base our decision.
Kathryn, I’m unfamiliar with the logic that organizers charge large amounts to attend workshops solely so your funding bodies “will think it’s legitimate”. In the workshops in which I’ve been involved there have been very real costs that need to be covered, such as speaker expenses and fees, venue rental, food (if provided), handout duplication, equipment rental, etc. (these of course may not apply in all cases). Plus, if the organization putting on the workshop is trying to make a little money off of it, then their cut as well.
I happen to have it on good authority that (believe it or not), LITA is losing money on that unconference, because of the costs of putting it on (partly for speaker fees which many unconferences don’t have — I suppose LITA thought it couldn’t possibly hold a conference of any type without having paid speakers).
In any case I think we should be reluctant to rush to judgment on the motives of conference organizers without more information. While you may think that a conference can be put on for a song, it could just be that a particular organization is choosing to eat a lot of the cost (as we did for the WorldCat Hackathon, despite charging our excessive $30).
Comment by Roy Tennant — January 14, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Ire, Roy? Really? I’m not speaking with ire about the Hackathon $30 fee. I’m just saying I think a “nuisance fee” is a bit weird. And I’m saying that given the choice between a $30 fee and no fee at all, I’ll choose no fee. Isn’t that common sense? But if you consider that ire…OK.
And I don’t think you can put a conference on for a song. But I know that you can put an unconference on without charging any attendance fees at all. I know because I’ve done it.
Comment by joshua m. neff — January 14, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
We didn’t sing much, but we did put on our last unconferences for about $800, Australian- which was for food so that we didn’t lose the energy of the event while people went out and found their own.
Yes, the organisers put in a lot of their own time, and the venue was donated – but I would guess that it was less time and energy than an organising committee puts in for a regular conference of a similar size. Overall the organisations that sponsored the event got as much value as they would have if they paid the same amount for their staff to attend. It’s a different business model.
The organisers of a two day “masterclass” with Helene Blowers here in Australia are charging $2600 per head. I don’t think this is merely covering costs.
Again, it may be different in the US, but there are a group of conference / seminar / workshop organisers across all sectors here in Australia who deliberately charge large amounts, aimed at the corporate sector, and are doing so to make the users think it is a “high class” kind of event.
It follows the same logic as the recent study that showed that if people think a placebo is more expensive then it will work better than one they think is cheap:
Waber et al. Commercial Features of Placebo and Therapeutic Efficacy JAMA. 2008;299(9):1016-1017.
Comment by Kathryn Greenhill — January 14, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
I think it interesting to note that ACRL is essentially doing an unconference for free:
http://wiki.radicalreference.info/index.php/ACRL_Unconference_2009
Voluntary donations to cover the cost of food, presumably donated space at the public library, set up as an adjunct to the ACRL conference, and no honorarium costs for keynote speakers.
Comment by Peter Murray — January 15, 2009 @ 8:41 am
I commented on this over on Uncontrolled Vocabulary earlier this week.
I think any unconference that charges should be transparent about the costs. The Library Camp@Syracuse charged in order to cover the cost of food. We had two organizations that were able to cover the cost of the space. (No good large space with wifi, etc., in SYR for free.) And we were transparent about that. (I don’t not remember if our two speakers on day 2 received an honorarium. If yes, that was paid for by one of the organizations.)
LITA is trying something new and wants to be sure that people come, hence the keynote speakers and registration fee. Let’s hope that they learn from this experience and think of lower cost ways to provide great content at unconferences.
Comment by Jill Hurst-Wahl — January 15, 2009 @ 10:13 am
When I was helping organize Library Camp NYC 2007 at Baruch College, we were extremely fortunate to have the library, where I work, offer to cover costs and allow us to avoid charging any sort of registration fees. When planning the event, we figured that at least 25% of the attendees would bail beforehand without letting us know, so we set the cap for registration at a level slightly higher than what we really wanted.
In the end, we had 124 people show up, which was right in the range of what we had planned for. We had bagels, coffee, & juice for breakfast; lunch with sandwiches, salad, & drinks; wifi; and there were no invited speakers and thus no honorariums. We also got the library to pay for these custom printed notebooks (which were surprisingly affordable) as swag for the attendees. I don’t think every unconference has to be done this way, but like Joshua Neff notes, it is possible to do an unconference in a way that does not require registration fees yet still manages to get the expected number of people show up.
I like Kathryn Greenhill’s suggestion of asking registrants to volunteer for some task and making it less likely that they’ll blow off attending. One of the three organizers of Library Camp NYC, Rachel Watstein, tirelessly reached out via email to the registrants to confirm their plans, which I think also helped keep our attendance numbers up.
Peter, a small clarification about the unconference that will be held at ACRL. It’s not actually sponsored or organized by ACRL but instead by Radical Reference.
Comment by Stephen Francoeur — January 15, 2009 @ 11:51 am
[...] an enlightening thing happened in the comments on a blog post by Steve Lawson (a post which is positively ancient in blog years, by the way). Up until yesterday, I’d [...]
Pingback by What is an Unconference Anyway? — August 13, 2009 @ 6:53 pm