WFC: Winning hearts and minds the WFC way

[james_davis_nicoll]

MRK’s very strong feelings about the WFC award specs and paying artists

Comments

[rosefox]

This comment from dd_b is instructive.

This was my assessment last year:

The only conclusion I can draw from the evidence I have--with full acknowledgment that I may be missing something--is that it works the other way around from what I originally thought: WFC exists to make money for hosting organizations, and the WFAs exist to draw people to WFC. The centering of profit gives rise to the belief that anyone who can't afford to attend isn't worth having around, award-nominated or not. Once that belief is accepted, all the rest of the policies make perfect sense.

I have seen no reason to change it since.

[oldcharliebrown.livejournal.com]

Sadly you are correct and I don't see it changing any time soon. Alas, it occurs to me what worked for Readercon, alas, would not work here, too. Crippling a WFC only hurts the hosting organization, and very little else. With WFC essentially unincorporated and not a legal entity whatsoever it is even harder to leverage pressure. :(

[al-zorra.livejournal.com]

It's a rackett -- a rackett that everyone knows is a rackett yet goes right along with it because it gives in return -- well, that's the part that's unclear. Somebody gets an ugly statue, that s/he pays for?

[rosefox]

People don't really notice that it's a racket because it's billed as a "professional conference" and they expect to pay more for those.

[(Anonymous)]

Fairly typical of some conventions, I think. I remember when I was nominated for an Origins award (for tabletop gaming), no one bothered to contact me; when I won, no one bothered to let me know until a few months later; when I contacted them to confirm, they had misplaced the actual award.... They told me they could make me one from next year's stock - if I wanted to pay for it myself. No thanks...