...My understanding the loss was approximately $20,000. ...

Thanks for the compliments, although I believe if you read my post a little more carefully, some of your answers are there.

I am NOT suggesting that the goal should be to make $30,000, although some might think that should be the goal. Again, to me, the perfect Congress should break even exactly, but, in order to make sure you do not lose money, it is usual that some money is made. When I ran the Congress, I lowered prices from the year before and increased the prize fund. I was diligent in cost controls and some folks complained, and others said I should raise the price since folks paid more last year and make more money. I cannot recall how much profit resulted, but it was under $10,000 and more than I would have liked (by the way, I do not mean to brag - though I take credit for a frugal overal philosophy - Sam Zimmerman handled far more of the detail work and the follow through than I did - he gets 90% of the credit). Because I think we should make it as affordable as possible.

My understanding the loss was approximately $20,000. There were about 400 folks at the Congress, therefore, breakeven would have meant $50 more each to close that gap. Of course, $50 more means a few more folks do not come, and the problem continues.

The Minutes excerpt referred to a $30,000 profit this year - to turn a $20,000 loss to a $30,000 gain with 400 folk would be, I believe, $125 more each.

Yes it is difficult to forcast - which is precisely what I said. You have some per person costs, some fixed costs. You need to charge enough to cover both, but if you set the price point at an attendance of 400, and 500 show, the fixed costs stay the same, and a profit occurs. If only 300 show, a loss results.

Why hold a Congress there? Again, did you read my post? First of all folks were willing to do it. Second, it was thought that finally having a Congress in So Cal was an important thing to do. It was hoped that a new location would bring in fresh locals and more folks from other places with the event being in a new area.

I do not have any inside info on what went wrong, but I have alot of experience with how these things are run. It is easy to not think of everything you need for an event that moves to different locations each time it happens. And it is important that this be a movable feast, because people's first Congress is usually one closest to them, and it is usually not their last.

So reading all the threads posts so far, it doesn't seem to me there's a huge scandal. It does look like the AGA could use a volunteer actuary to help manage risks in planning, especially if a lesser known venue like Vancouver is to be considered in the future.

eeekkk! this is the only way I get to go
I hope we're being beneficial.

Alas, the AGA could use many volunteers, not all of which are available.

... we could learn from the loss that we took last year, and find a way to do things again without that loss ...

...and learn how to not lose $22000...

One of the reasons for congress not breaking even or turning a modest profit was because of no shows. Usually when you register for a conference there is a drop dead date when you have to pay or else you will be deregistered. If this typical process was followed, there should have been red flags indicating there were not going to be enough people attending. This would have allowed the leaders to work with the venue to reduce costs. How did the organizers allow at least 50 people to slide on payment and get themselves into this issue?
...

I was going to push on these items (slow minutes and no statement about 2011) at tonight's board meeting, but it did not take place as scheduled due to some having written it down on the wrong date. So I wrote some emails; it sounds like a statement is in the works and I'm reasonably confident we'll get something published soon.

BUMP. Any news on this?

Well, my perspective on all this is different:

I thought that the Congress in Santa Barbara was so good, I think we should keep doing it there every year. The weather was fantastic. The food was fantastic. The ocean views were fantastic. The walking/jogging trail around the lagoon was fantastic. The logistics of getting there were easy. The go was fantastic. Why not go back?

I would be happy to pay $125 more to do it again, if that's what it takes. And presumably, we could learn from the loss that we took last year, and find a way to do things again without that loss and without having to charge significantly more.

I know the locals who helped organize last year won't want to do all that work again so soon, so we'd need to find a way for the rest of us to somehow organize it, but majority of the groundwork was done last year. We just need to find a way to leverage that and learn how to not lose $22000.

Thank you to all who worked on the 2011 Congress, I really enjoyed it!

California is much nicer than North Carolina.

I haven't been yet to a single Go congress. Im not an AGA member either, so this is a voice without any kind of vote.

I believe that it is better to provide a better experience than a cheaper one. California is much nicer than North Carolina. I've been to both states and my experience was vastly different. I think its a much better long-term bet to go for a nicer place even if it was more expensive. The more people it gets the easier it will be to get sponsors.

In general, i think its better to have fewer hardcore fans, than a lot of "meh's". And a great venue makes a lot of hardcore fans. Plus it can be a decent familiy vacation with all the beaches and the sort.

The more people it gets the easier it will be to get sponsors.

In general, i think its better to have fewer hardcore fans, than a lot of "meh's"

... I think that the AGA should take over organizing the event...

... using people experienced with the process...

In 2011, Prez Abramson did that.


But they brought in people with no experience running congress.

It was the worst of both worlds: no local familarity, and no Congress experience.