Re: COMMON Virtual Conference

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM, John Allen <jallen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Let's also keep in mind if something is free there is no
revenue generated by it.
Therefore, it would make sense there would be less marketing
for something free.
The more marketing done for something free = more $$ lost on
the product. Even a virtual conference
has costs associated to it

I think this is too simplistic a description of the situation. If
something provided for free doesn't generate revenue (some number of
steps down the line) then why give anything for free, ever? Why is
COMMON bothering with this conference at all?

It's not necessarily up to the company giving something away
to make sure that everyone hears about it (is marketed to)
Some of the responsibility of furthering our education is
for us to find them not wait for them to find us.

No one said it is anyone's responsibility to promote anything. What I
am saying is, if COMMON is going to bother to have a virtual
conference, which costs something to produce, then it will be *better
for COMMON* if COMMON makes it better known.

This conference is going to cost COMMON the same amount to produce
whether zero people watch it or a million people. I think COMMON
would be better off with an actual viewership closer to a million
people rather than closer to zero.

I would think the cost of sending a few e-mails on this mailing list
is pretty low. If a few e-mails on this list gets one person to join
COMMON as a paid member who would not otherwise have done so, I would
say COMMON has come out ahead.

John Y.