4 ms·

I've never understood this obsession in the tech industry with holding small to medium sized conferences in major cities. For something truly humongous you nee

by avar 3y ago

I've never understood this obsession in the tech industry with holding small to medium sized conferences in major cities. For something truly humongous you need a Las Vegas, but as a participant I'd much prefer the conference just book a hotel somewhere in the woods, or in a relatively small town. The usual counterargument is airport connectivity etc. But in most cases you can simply drive for X amount of time away from the urban center the airport is serving, instead of towards it, and find a perfectly serviceable venue that could host a conference of the same size.

rhaway84773 3y ago
You hold a small to mid conference in SF and the plurality of your audience and presenters will not need to pay for a place to stay. That means the quality of your conference will increase significantly. Place it in another major city and they can easily fly there and find a place to stay there. Being a major city their companies may have subsidiaries there so they may be able to do other company work and add this onto a company trip. And if you’re an international conference, you should probably limit yourself to something like 5 cities or else everyone from outside the US will likely struggle and not be able to make a real trip outside of it. Holding conferences anywhere outside major cities does not seem to make any sense to me.
- zgluck 3y ago
  [flagged]
- uranusjr 3y ago
  I run some events and hear opinions from both sides often. My take on this is there are basically two types of conferences. A more remote location helps people have more fun hanging out with each other, but a big city venue enable more people to attend. Both have value and there are middlegrounds, the choice depends entirely on what you’re looking for.
xnx 3y ago
Most conferences are field-trips/paid-vacation for businesspeople. A large part of the attraction is being in a fun destination.
wenc 3y ago
> I've never understood this obsession in the tech industry with holding small to medium sized conferences in major cities. It's because there are advantages to major cities: (1) connectivity; (2) incumbent audience; (3) capacity; (4) entertainment; LV mostly wins on 3 and 4 but loses on 1 and 2. NYC and Chicago win on all 4.

by avar 3y ago

rhaway84773 3y ago

You hold a small to mid conference in SF and the plurality of your audience and presenters will not need to pay for a place to stay. That means the quality of your conference will increase significantly. Place it in another major city and they can easily fly there and find a place to stay there. Being a major city their companies may have subsidiaries there so they may be able to do other company work and add this onto a company trip. And if you’re an international conference, you should probably limit yourself to something like 5 cities or else everyone from outside the US will likely struggle and not be able to make a real trip outside of it. Holding conferences anywhere outside major cities does not seem to make any sense to me.

zgluck 3y ago
[flagged]
uranusjr 3y ago
I run some events and hear opinions from both sides often. My take on this is there are basically two types of conferences. A more remote location helps people have more fun hanging out with each other, but a big city venue enable more people to attend. Both have value and there are middlegrounds, the choice depends entirely on what you’re looking for.

xnx 3y ago

Most conferences are field-trips/paid-vacation for businesspeople. A large part of the attraction is being in a fun destination.

wenc 3y ago

> I've never understood this obsession in the tech industry with holding small to medium sized conferences in major cities. It's because there are advantages to major cities: (1) connectivity; (2) incumbent audience; (3) capacity; (4) entertainment; LV mostly wins on 3 and 4 but loses on 1 and 2. NYC and Chicago win on all 4.