4 ms·

From talking to TEDx organizers here in Taiwan, it's a major pain to satisfy some of the arbitrary rules. I'm sure that many of them has reason why it is like t

by imrehg 14y ago

From talking to TEDx organizers here in Taiwan, it's a major pain to satisfy some of the arbitrary rules. I'm sure that many of them has reason why it is like that, even if they sometimes look very stupid or made by people who have no idea about things that are local to here (for an arbitrary definition of "here"). I'm personally confounded that people who have so many problems with the rules they forced to follow are not starting their own event? Really, then no more headaches of despots, build your own brand, make your own rules. I for one really enjoy organizing Ignite instead of TEDx, so fewer rules (I guess mostly self-regulation, and only the format of the talk cannot change). (Disclaimer: never organized TEDx, but know a bunch of people who did or were volunteers somewhere, Ignite Taipei is going on for its 7th event tomorrow)

dsymonds 14y ago
How is it hard to satisfy the rules that are being complained about here? It should be trivial to arrange for no sponsor logos, no sponsor speakers, and so on.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  I assume the rules being hard refers to the rules relation to event management, not the rules in isolation. Events are expensive to manage, disallowing sponsors to talk or have their logo well placed will be detrimental to the value they gain from sponsoring an event, which will reduce / remove their interest in being a sponsor. Trivial to arrange, non-trivial impact.
  - elmuchoprez 14y ago
    On-stage sponsorship would create a whole new problem and set of rules (and probably costs). The value of on-stage sponsorship is not advertising to the 100 attendees, but rather that TED posts all conference videos to their main site, which is potentially hundreds of thousands of viewers. So now you've got all these TEDx events negotiating sponsorship deals (and price points) for a product (positioning on the TED site) that they don't control. So you'll see a flood of sponsorships competing for the events willing to accept the lowest sponsorship bids, which I'm guessing TED wants to avoid. But more importantly, this money is exclusively handled by the local TEDx organizers, which provides a real profit incentive to simply run a lot of events regardless of overall quality. So TED could allow on-stage sponsorships, set predetermined sponsorship rates, collect the bulk of that sponsorship money, etc... but now we're creating more rules and bureaucracy. Besides, I don't think TED proper wants to be in the business (read: hassle) of making money that way. Besides, I'm fine with TED talks not looking like NASCAR events.
Dylanlacey 14y ago
I think one of the key points is that the event's way of functioning (or DNA as the source puts it) gives rise to a certain set of key principles that "make" a specific event part of the family of events. If a rule isn't applicable because of the community to which it is being applied, this might be because that community wasn't considered, but it's equally possible that the event isn't right for that community to begin with without modifying the intent in such a way as to be a different thing. I do agree, however, that if something's not right you should try to fix it, possibly by creating your own thing... Horses for Courses.
lwat 14y ago
Which of the rules specifically are a major pain?

by imrehg 14y ago

dsymonds 14y ago

How is it hard to satisfy the rules that are being complained about here? It should be trivial to arrange for no sponsor logos, no sponsor speakers, and so on.

citricsquid 14y ago
I assume the rules being hard refers to the rules relation to event management, not the rules in isolation. Events are expensive to manage, disallowing sponsors to talk or have their logo well placed will be detrimental to the value they gain from sponsoring an event, which will reduce / remove their interest in being a sponsor. Trivial to arrange, non-trivial impact.
- elmuchoprez 14y ago
  On-stage sponsorship would create a whole new problem and set of rules (and probably costs). The value of on-stage sponsorship is not advertising to the 100 attendees, but rather that TED posts all conference videos to their main site, which is potentially hundreds of thousands of viewers. So now you've got all these TEDx events negotiating sponsorship deals (and price points) for a product (positioning on the TED site) that they don't control. So you'll see a flood of sponsorships competing for the events willing to accept the lowest sponsorship bids, which I'm guessing TED wants to avoid. But more importantly, this money is exclusively handled by the local TEDx organizers, which provides a real profit incentive to simply run a lot of events regardless of overall quality. So TED could allow on-stage sponsorships, set predetermined sponsorship rates, collect the bulk of that sponsorship money, etc... but now we're creating more rules and bureaucracy. Besides, I don't think TED proper wants to be in the business (read: hassle) of making money that way. Besides, I'm fine with TED talks not looking like NASCAR events.

Dylanlacey 14y ago

I think one of the key points is that the event's way of functioning (or DNA as the source puts it) gives rise to a certain set of key principles that "make" a specific event part of the family of events. If a rule isn't applicable because of the community to which it is being applied, this might be because that community wasn't considered, but it's equally possible that the event isn't right for that community to begin with without modifying the intent in such a way as to be a different thing. I do agree, however, that if something's not right you should try to fix it, possibly by creating your own thing... Horses for Courses.

lwat 14y ago

Which of the rules specifically are a major pain?