James, Tobias,
On Nov 29, 2010, at 10:46 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
At 12:39 PM 11/29/2010, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Bob,
agree with James request for more detail on the used day passes, if
possible.
We took surveys of day pass users after IETF76, IETF77, and IETF78. The
results can be found at:
IETF 76 - Hiroshima
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=q7wUzp3Y7LpMd_2fHQZ_2bG6_2f407S5nGSHbzxbsOltYaqV0_3d
IETF 77 - Anaheim
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=p0f3XCVFGjqzGX13hCcDDayhGXXS5zm5dcL9Sk6avpI_3d
IETF 78 - Maastricht
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=WQ_2bNSXS9_2bqPXQkbU1IrSnnAXsxefNAMdCl_2fkRwsBqD8_3d
The survey for Beijing just opened and was sent to people to bought day passes.
Personally, I believe the risen cost for day passes probably knocked out
some of the demand (basic supply-demand curve from economics ;-) ).
Probably day passes are more attractive to local participants who want
to get a taste of the IETF or only visit one WG session. And in
particular in China the cost of $350 is very high compared to local
salary levels, so am not surprised about the decline.
Well, I think $350 is high for any country for a day-pass. So IMO that should
be lowered regardless...
My personal view of day passes would be to allow first-time visitors
(especially when from the local area) to get a taste of work with the
IETF and reduce the initial hurdle.
this is actually an interesting idea - to give legitimate first-timers a
price break (and I'm talking about for the week, not just day-passes). That
might increase overall the numbers of local attendees (i.e., from that
country - where the travel costs aren't as great because the airfare isn't as
much or there is no airfare at all). Has this been considered?
The result of the surveys we took after the past three meetings showed people
who had only attended one meeting:
IETF76 33% (9 of 27)
IETF77 39% (26 of 67)
IETF78 75% (6 of 8) **
This is, of course, only the people who responded to the survey. From the
registration data, Day Pass usage was 124, 135, and 71 for these meetings, and
total first time attendees was 267, 192, 194. It's not clear to me how much
correlation there is between day passes and first time attendees.
We are taking a look at the registration data to see if people who bought a day
pass attended a single IETF meeting or continue to attend subsequent meetings.
I will also see if we can do a total correlation with first time attendees and
day passes.
I also note, that if we want to encourage first time attendees, we could have a
discounted full week registration fee targeted at that. IMHO, that would be
better than the day pass if that is the intent.
Hope this is helpful.
Bob
** Note, this number was derived by setting up a filter on the survey data.
James
In this regard I welcome the day
passes and would even like to see them with lower prices. Not sure if
others would share this point of view.
But if we would have a common understanding on the purpose of day
passes, we could even tailor the experiment a bit to be more targeted:
e.g. only offer day passes to local newbies at a lower rate (in the $200
range or below) on conditions of only one day pass per person, only for
first time IETF attendance (have never attended an IETF before) and
maybe only if you live in hosting country or region (I figure we have
the list of past participants so could actually easily verify such
conditions).
Just my 5 cents.
Many greetings, Tobias
On 11/22/2010 09:28 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
Bob
Is there any data to tell us whether these one-day passes were
targeting a specific WG or day of converged scheduling in which a key
number of WGs met within an area?
It might be quite useful to know if day-passers were targeting a WG
(and if so, which WG) or were just taking in whatever was on the day
they wanted to (or could) attend.
James
At 02:59 PM 11/22/2010, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
As part of the IAOC presentation in Beijing, I said that the IAOC
will be making a decision on Day Passes in the middle of December. I
would like your feedback on this.
As reported in Beijing, the goal of the Day Pass experiment is to
"Goal is to access convenience to IETF attendees without significant
impact on revenue"
Usage has been:
124 in Hiroshima ($200)
135 in Anaheim ($200)
71 in Maastricht ($350)
47 in Beijing ($350)
While this looks like a trend toward lower usage (possibly driven by
higher fees), it's hard to tell if this trend will continue or reverse.
Possible reasons to continue offering Day Passes:
- No significant negative impact on overall revenue. Hard to tell what
percentage of people would buy full registration instead.
- Useful for people buying the day passes.
Possible reasons to discontinue offering Day Passes:
- Caused unexpected effect on Nomcom qualification.
- Encourages drop in for a single session and discourages full IETF
experience,
meetings in the hall, and cross area fertilization.
- Not being used heavily.
- Could impact revenue if usage increased.
I appreciate you feedback. Feedback can be sent to me directly, the
IAOC list (iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org), or to the IETF list
(ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org). Try
to avoid all three :-)
Thanks,
Bob
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf