earlier replies
Replying to @cczona
@cczona @peterc Getting more people to speak who aren’t in a position to do it just for reputation will cost organizers serious extra money.
2
@stilkov @peterc Costs _sponsors_ money. As a deductible marketing expense. Framed as Diversity Sponsor level, also great PR. #strategy
2
@stilkov @peterc frankly, @AlterConf has proven that paying speakers is completely viable even when tickets are a pittance. It's a decision.
1
2
@cczona @stilkov @peterc AFAIK, they do it by preferring local speakers? (which is a very good approach, FWIW)
1
@Argorak @stilkov @peterc no, everyone gets paid by @alterconf regardless of whether a local. Local pref is abt giving voice to local issues
1
@Argorak @stilkov @peterc @AlterConf (the Detroit conference is gong to be stellar example of that. Talking abt e.g. Detroit water crisis.)
1
@cczona @stilkov @peterc @AlterConf Sure, didn't want to imply that it's a cost-saving measure per se, but certainly helping.
1
@Argorak @stilkov @peterc @AlterConf cost saving compared to covering travel/hotel for all speakers. Uncommon to have 0 locals at any conf
1
@cczona @stilkov @peterc @AlterConf Yep, I agree that in the end it's more a question of how you want to distribute funds.
1
1
@argorak @stilkov @peterc @alterconf and how far you want to push on the sponsorship hunting front, to enable funding multiple priorities.
1
1
Replying to @cczona
@cczona @argorak @peterc @alterconf Nothing wrong if a better conference costs more money.

Oct 8, 2015 · 10:43 AM UTC

1
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov @argorak @peterc @alterconf 👍 There are such talented speakers out there, many of them rarely speaking because cost is too onerous.