$60,000 in the hole is not the same as $60,000 in expenditures. From what it sounds with the word LOSS capitalized that means after you take into account registration revenue and other such factors.
I'm not sure what registration cost, but if it was $40 at 809 attendees that is #32,360.00 in gains, so a loss of 60,000 would mean they expended 92,360.00. Which is approximately 1/5 of Anthocon's operating budget if your half million statement is accurate. This isn't even factoring in dealer's den rent, "super sponsers", and other factors so it can be safe to say actually well over 1/5 of Anthrocon's operating in that case.
Yes, a lot of money gets thrown at these things, and hopefully they have the capital to overwrite the loss, but they can't sustain that on a yearly basis forever unless they are making 100,000 a year in a place that has affordable housing, which in Seattle is unlikely.
Going big the first year could be a good move, but it's risky. If it pays dividends for next year then it'll have been a good move. If it doesn't then they may not be able to sustain it.
However I will say this, fiscal information isn't something I think is good to be transparent about in most cases. Ironically since my article was about being transparent. Only finance dorks and people interest in running cons should be interested in financial operating costs, to attendees that number should be kept under the hat.
$60,000 in the hole is not the same as $60,000 in expenditures. From what it sounds with the word LOSS capitalized that means after you take into account registration revenue and other such factors.
I'm not sure what registration cost, but if it was $40 at 809 attendees that is #32,360.00 in gains, so a loss of 60,000 would mean they expended 92,360.00. Which is approximately 1/5 of Anthocon's operating budget if your half million statement is accurate. This isn't even factoring in dealer's den rent, "super sponsers", and other factors so it can be safe to say actually well over 1/5 of Anthrocon's operating in that case.
Yes, a lot of money gets thrown at these things, and hopefully they have the capital to overwrite the loss, but they can't sustain that on a yearly basis forever unless they are making 100,000 a year in a place that has affordable housing, which in Seattle is unlikely.
Going big the first year could be a good move, but it's risky. If it pays dividends for next year then it'll have been a good move. If it doesn't then they may not be able to sustain it.
However I will say this, fiscal information isn't something I think is good to be transparent about in most cases. Ironically since my article was about being transparent. Only finance dorks and people interest in running cons should be interested in financial operating costs, to attendees that number should be kept under the hat.
The oatmeal doesn't need to be spilled, per say.