On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Cedric Greevey <cgree...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> In fact, your statement is wrong as to very basic economics. The value of >> being there at the conference isn't alterable by something that hasn't, at >> that point, even happened yet. A delayed release only takes value *away* >> from the *videos*. It may make being there at the conference *relatively* >> more valuable than the videos, but it doesn't change the conference's >> *absolute* value and it actually *diminishes* the *total* value of both. >> > > But it's the relative value that matters. To decide whether to go to the > conference, I compare the relative value of going over not going; > You are confused. The "relative value of going over not going" *is* the absolute value of the conference and *is not* "the relative value of the conference and the videos". Most of the value of the conference isn't something videos can compete with anyway, as it's in the opportunities to meet people and perhaps to do live Q&A with a presenter. The videos likewise have value the conference itself can't compete with -- replayability, convenience, not having to travel a long way at substantial expense to see them, etc. The two are far more complementary than they are competitive with one another. > Broadly speaking, a conference offers two things: information and the fun > of networking and being around with others who share your interests. If I > know the videos are going to be released immediately, for free, then my > judgment about whether to attend the conference becomes a very specific > calculation about whether the value to me of interacting with other > Clojurians exceeds cost of the conference. > And that's exactly as it should be. The only *good* reason to travel all that way is to meet and interact with the other attendees. Using artificial scarcity of the videos to try to coerce people into traveling physically to the conference that *don't* value the interaction enough to go anyway is only going to bring in marginal additional attendees that are *bad attendees*, diluting the population of attendees that are really looking to network with one another and making that networking more difficult. The hay straws to needles ratio in the haystack goes up. > The delayed release means that going to the conference becomes not just > about the networking, but also the thrill and immediacy of being the "first > on the block" to be privy to the latest and greatest information about > Clojure, the new libraries, etc. Thus the delayed release adds value to > the conference. > No, it really doesn't. Because if you attend you're the "first on the block" no matter how soon the videos are released, given that nobody hops in his time machine and releases the videos *before* the conference. :) See also: my much earlier post debunking the economic fallacy underlying the counterproductive notion of television "blackouts" for sports games that aren't sold out at the stadium. (I can provide citations on that topic if need be.) -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
