Difference between revisions of "Pass-Along Funds"
(Created page with "One of the continuing problems faced by Worldcons is that their memberships are somewhat unpredictable, with budget decisions necessarily having to be made before accurate...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
One of the continuing problems faced by [[Worldcons]] is that their memberships are somewhat unpredictable, with budget decisions necessarily having to be made before accurate income projections are possible. This forces a Worldcon to either gamble on its income and risk bankruptcy or to budget conservatively. The latter is obviously more prudent, but results in [[fandom]] not getting the whole Worldcon it paid for, and the organizing committee sitting on a large profit. | One of the continuing problems faced by [[Worldcons]] is that their memberships are somewhat unpredictable, with budget decisions necessarily having to be made before accurate income projections are possible. This forces a Worldcon to either gamble on its income and risk bankruptcy or to budget conservatively. The latter is obviously more prudent, but results in [[fandom]] not getting the whole Worldcon it paid for, and the organizing committee sitting on a large profit. | ||
| − | After the [[Constellation Bankruptcy]] of 1983-84, [[L.A.con IV]], the 1984 Worldcon in [[LA]] pinched pennies and wound up with a huge profit. Fandom was Not Amused, and when the LAcon committee gave some of its | + | After the [[Constellation Bankruptcy]] of 1983-84, [[L.A.con IV]], the 1984 Worldcon in [[LA]] pinched pennies and wound up with a huge profit. Fandom was Not Amused, and when the LAcon committee gave some of its profit to [[LASFS]] in partial compensation for the stress it suffered by having Worldcon come to town (Worldcons are notoriously hard on the host club), the committee was on the receiving end of widespread criticism. |
The problem could be ameliorated if Worldcons that made a lot of money passed it on to Worldcons which didn't, but this idea was not adopted since whoever began it would have to give without any hope of receiving funds from a predecessor. | The problem could be ameliorated if Worldcons that made a lot of money passed it on to Worldcons which didn't, but this idea was not adopted since whoever began it would have to give without any hope of receiving funds from a predecessor. | ||
| − | In 1987, [[Noreascon 3]] (the 1989 Worldcon) announced that it would jump-start a Pass-Along Funds ('''PAF''') process. It promised to pass along at least 50% of its surplus equally to the next three Worldcons which would make the same pledge. This was enough to get things going and all subsequent Worldcons except for [[Chicon V]]) participated. | + | In 1987, [[Noreascon 3]] (the 1989 Worldcon) announced that it would jump-start a Pass-Along Funds ('''PAF''') process. It promised to pass along at least 50% of its surplus equally to the next three Worldcons which would make the same pledge. This was enough to get things going and all subsequent Worldcons (except for [[Chicon V]]) participated. |
The payments are not huge, probably averaging around $8,000, but this means an average of something like $25,000 in advance funding for each Worldcon. | The payments are not huge, probably averaging around $8,000, but this means an average of something like $25,000 in advance funding for each Worldcon. | ||
[[Category:worldcon]] | [[Category:worldcon]] | ||
Revision as of 19:45, 26 December 2019
One of the continuing problems faced by Worldcons is that their memberships are somewhat unpredictable, with budget decisions necessarily having to be made before accurate income projections are possible. This forces a Worldcon to either gamble on its income and risk bankruptcy or to budget conservatively. The latter is obviously more prudent, but results in fandom not getting the whole Worldcon it paid for, and the organizing committee sitting on a large profit.
After the Constellation Bankruptcy of 1983-84, L.A.con IV, the 1984 Worldcon in LA pinched pennies and wound up with a huge profit. Fandom was Not Amused, and when the LAcon committee gave some of its profit to LASFS in partial compensation for the stress it suffered by having Worldcon come to town (Worldcons are notoriously hard on the host club), the committee was on the receiving end of widespread criticism.
The problem could be ameliorated if Worldcons that made a lot of money passed it on to Worldcons which didn't, but this idea was not adopted since whoever began it would have to give without any hope of receiving funds from a predecessor.
In 1987, Noreascon 3 (the 1989 Worldcon) announced that it would jump-start a Pass-Along Funds (PAF) process. It promised to pass along at least 50% of its surplus equally to the next three Worldcons which would make the same pledge. This was enough to get things going and all subsequent Worldcons (except for Chicon V) participated.
The payments are not huge, probably averaging around $8,000, but this means an average of something like $25,000 in advance funding for each Worldcon.
