4 ms·

(this is something I have experience with) Unfortunately, there's really no market-based solution to convention-center practices. Competing for desirable locat

(this is something I have experience with) Unfortunately, there's really no market-based solution to convention-center practices. Competing for desirable locations -- say, by building your own convention center and charging less/having better practices -- is close enough to impossible that we can just call it impossible. And given how often convention centers are funded by the taxpayers, it's only fair for the taxpayers to impose conditions on how their money will be used.

mikeash 11y ago
Even if there's only one convention center in an area that's suitable, there are a lot of cities with convention centers out there. Lots of conventions are not particularly tied down to a location, other than for sentimental reasons. I get that the situation sucks. I've been there too. But ultimately you're paying this tremendous premium not because there's literally no choice, which is what a monopoly would entail, but merely because it's worth it over the alternative. I think the fact that these things are often owned by the local governments is a good reason why they shouldn't be doing stuff like this, but that seems like a remedy to ask for from the local governments in question, rather than some sort of federal investigation.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  bell never had a monopoly because you could choose to run wires to all the people you want to communicate with, you merely pay them because it's worth it over the alternative.
- ghaff 11y ago
  The whole tradeshow thing is something of a racket--speaking as someone who has been involved with tech tradeshows in various contexts for more years than I care to admit. As you suggest, there are lots of cities and lots of convention centers, at least until you get above a certain size in which case your options drop dramatically. But I suspect that moving most tech conferences to $RANDOM_MIDWEST_CITY wouldn't be a popular choice among potential attendees. (Not that I'm personally a particular fan of certain popular venues like Vegas but many are.)
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  Like ghaff says, once your event gets above a certain size, you're not choosing a venue for "sentimental reasons". The number of places that can handle the truly large conventions and conferences is, I suspect, not as high as you think it is.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Right. You get to around the 10K+ range and you've basically got Vegas (the Sands and possibly the Convention Center though I haven't been to the latter since Comdex days), the Moscone, Javits, the main convention center in Boston (10K is a bit large for the Hynes), Orlando can be made to work (though I hate the logistic involved). There are doubtless other potential locations--Chicago was the other Comdex site back in the day, Houston had/had huge oil & gas shows--but I can't remember the last time I've seen a top-tier tech show at another location.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Yes McCormick Place in Chicago can definitely handle conventions of that size.

mikeash 11y ago

Even if there's only one convention center in an area that's suitable, there are a lot of cities with convention centers out there. Lots of conventions are not particularly tied down to a location, other than for sentimental reasons. I get that the situation sucks. I've been there too. But ultimately you're paying this tremendous premium not because there's literally no choice, which is what a monopoly would entail, but merely because it's worth it over the alternative. I think the fact that these things are often owned by the local governments is a good reason why they shouldn't be doing stuff like this, but that seems like a remedy to ask for from the local governments in question, rather than some sort of federal investigation.

throwaway2048 11y ago
bell never had a monopoly because you could choose to run wires to all the people you want to communicate with, you merely pay them because it's worth it over the alternative.
ghaff 11y ago
The whole tradeshow thing is something of a racket--speaking as someone who has been involved with tech tradeshows in various contexts for more years than I care to admit. As you suggest, there are lots of cities and lots of convention centers, at least until you get above a certain size in which case your options drop dramatically. But I suspect that moving most tech conferences to $RANDOM_MIDWEST_CITY wouldn't be a popular choice among potential attendees. (Not that I'm personally a particular fan of certain popular venues like Vegas but many are.)
ubernostrum 11y ago
Like ghaff says, once your event gets above a certain size, you're not choosing a venue for "sentimental reasons". The number of places that can handle the truly large conventions and conferences is, I suspect, not as high as you think it is.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Right. You get to around the 10K+ range and you've basically got Vegas (the Sands and possibly the Convention Center though I haven't been to the latter since Comdex days), the Moscone, Javits, the main convention center in Boston (10K is a bit large for the Hynes), Orlando can be made to work (though I hate the logistic involved). There are doubtless other potential locations--Chicago was the other Comdex site back in the day, Houston had/had huge oil & gas shows--but I can't remember the last time I've seen a top-tier tech show at another location.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Yes McCormick Place in Chicago can definitely handle conventions of that size.