At 12:48 PM 11/30/2010, Bob Hinden wrote:
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.
Bob - I apologize for the miscommunication. Full week registration
was what I meant when I stated "this is actually an interesting idea..."
James
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