I read on Ben's blog that registration for the Adobe Max 2006 conference is now open. I was approached earlier this year to give a talk at Max on Flex and PHP -- a topic that I would have loved to cover, especially considering that Arp now has migration classes to handle AMF0 via the open source AMFPHP remoting gateway. However, I had to sadly turn Adobe down. Why? Because Adobe Max has a policy of not paying for speaker's travel expenses or accomodation for the event. Instead, as a thank-you, speakers receive free entrace to the conference. That's a good thing as otherwise they would have to pay at the door so they could enter to present their sessions.
The What’s wrong with Adobe Max? A speaker’s perspective. article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.
I don't know about you, but this is not what I expect from a professional conference and this is not an industry norm when you look at other professional conferences like FlashForward, FITC, Spark Europe, Multi-Mania and Flash on the Beach. The problem is not that I cannot afford to pay for a flight to the US or for a few nights accomodation at the Venetian (a lovely hotel that Microsoft kindly put us up in for Mix '06 earlier this year and one that I will definitely be visiting again in any case.) It's just that I refuse to do so as a matter of principle. Here's why:
People attend conferences primarily to listen to the sessions given by the speakers who present there. If it wasn't for the speakers, there wouldn't be a conference. This being the case, it gets my goat when a conference like Max charges over $1,000 a ticket for entrance to the event and then is too cheap to pay the expenses of their speakers. This is the least I would expect as a show of respect for the time and effort speakers put into presenting at an event. And I believe that this is the least that any speaker should expect. Conferences that make a profit off of the backs of speakers without meeting this minimum standard should not be rewarded for their exploitative policies. (The other conference that comes to mind that doesn't pay speaker's expenses is WebDU.) If nothing else, it's not fair to other conferences that do respect their speakers.
The wide discrepancy in how various conferences treat their speakers can be seen if you look at the upcoming Flash on the Beach conference that John Davey is organizing here in Brighton. Beyond paying for speaker's expenses, John is actually considering alternative models of profit sharing for the conference.
I need to stress again that this is not a monetary issue at all. In fact, anyone who knows me knows that I donate a very large portion of my time and quite a sizable amount of resources to my various community projects, including the London MMUG and OSFlash. It all comes down to whether or not conferences respect the time and effort of their speakers. In my book, charging over $1,000 for a ticket and then not paying for the expenses of your speakers is just plain wrong.
I hope Adobe Max will, in the future, join the ranks of other professional conferences like FlashForward, FITC, Spark Europe, Multi-Mania and Flash on the Beach -- all of which are organized by groups and individuals that have far less in terms of resources than Adobe does and yet, apparently, have a far greater respect for their speakers.
The What’s wrong with Adobe Max? A speaker’s perspective. article by Aral Balkan, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England License.
I’m also surprised to see this policy continuing with Adobe not paying for MAX speakers — you’d expect them to at least cover some expenses.
Have presented at a number of conferences myself (including FlashForward 2005 San Fran, which was unpaid as I wasn’t one of the headliners). While webDU doesn’t pay either and there is a considerable cost flying over to Sydney I wouldn’t have any problem doing it again if asked.
To me there’s a difference between conferences that come about as a community effort and ones that are an actual commercial enterprise. Its surprising to see how its generally these community events that do the most for their speakers and offer financial compensation.
I do agree with your sentiment Aral, and there are few occasions where I’d fork up a couple of thousand USD again for the priviledge of speaking for free at events that charge more for their tickets than your flight would cost.
Hi Aral!
I agree with you at all.
Hey!, I have a few photos from Kortrijk, Multi-mania, I will show in my blog soon or maybe I can send them to you. I had a great time last time last night. Did you have a Duvel?
Today I finished a deadline and I leave to Russia for a few on holidays for a week.
Bye,
David
Hey David — same here, man! I hope we get to hang out again soon (and yes, I had a Duvel — two actually — two too many, I think!)
Have fun on your holidays :)
“That’s a good thing as otherwise they would have to pay at the door so they could enter to present their sessions.”
-Aral
that’s hilarious! I would feel wronged as an attendee with the knowledge that I paid $1,000 and none of it was going towards the very speakers whom i came to see present. If there were no speakers, would anyone come? lmao
And do they justify this lack of compensation in anyway? Or is it just to maximise their own profits? I’m sure many speakers will present for no financial incentive, but to not cover expenses is just plain greedy!
Aral – I agree completely. Especially for an industry conference that charges over $1000 just to get in the door, it’s pretty ridiculous. Vegas is a 5-hr drive for me, but FITC is in Hollywood only 2 weeks earlier, and that’s only a 2-hr drive :)
As I’ve stated elsewhere, conferences such as FiTC and FF charge a fraction of the MAX admission, pay hotel and airfare, put on special speaker dinners and events, and still apparently make enough of a profit to keep doing it. FF even PAYS speaker a few hundred bucks on top of everything else.
This is definitely one of my pet peeves as well. I find it amazing that a conference with a larger economy of scale (more people == lower cost per person), a higher admission price, and backed by a major corporation (with a lot to gain from the conference) can’t cover basic speaker expenses. On top of it, they claim it is non-profit (which leaves me scratching my head), dictate session topics and content, and have (by far) the worst speaker support of any conference I’ve spoken at. WebDU might not cover expenses, but at least they have the good grace to treat you well when you’re there.
As you said, it really has nothing to do with the money. I just think it’s completely unfair for me to have to subsidize a major corporate event with a couple thousand dollars of my own money, on top of all the work it takes to prepare and deliver a talk.
Needless to say, last year was enough for me. Until things are revamped, I won’t be speaking at MAX again.
I love Macrodobia, but not MAX. :(
Aral, I just want to point out that MAX won’t even break even this year. It is not a money maker, and never has been. At the end of the day the deficit has to be covered, and I can’t blame execes for not wanting any even bigger deficit.
— Ben
Ben,
This is what I was told, too. I’m not calling anyone a liar, but it is very strange that cheaper, smaller conferences can operate at a profit whilst affording speaker expenses, and MAX cannot. Bureaucratic overhead perhaps?
I’m genuinely curious.
Grant.
Although I’m sure its not your direct intent to bad-mouth webDU, its nevertheless very upsetting to be tarred with the same brush as MAX. And to highlight the webDU conference in a context that suggests we do not respect our speakers is just plain unfair.
Given the size, location and very nature of webDU we simply don’t have the funds to “invite” international speakers, expenses paid. However, we do what we can to assist speakers who request to present at the conference through profit sharing on workshops and other options. We also take great pains to take personal care of speakers and their partners.
First, I don’t think you can put WebDU in the same boat as MAX. I flew myself from the US to Australia to speak at webDU last year, and I had a great time. Geoff works his ass off to put that thing together and is lucky if he breaks even. Ask him how much work goes into it, and how much it costs before you start playing with your jump to conclusion mat.
But aside from that, you get props, street credibility, an assumed position of authority, and the ability to influence people when you speak. Pretending that you get nothing out of it but a bill is misleading and it offends a lot of people who work very hard.
I spoke at MAX last year to cover for some people that got sick (after paying my admission), and didn’t get so much as a thank you from MM/Adobe, but a lot of people got to know me, and a bit of work and respect came out of it.
If you can’t afford it, and have nothing to gain by doing it, then don’t do it.
Hello Friends,
I must say sympathize with your feelings on this issue, I think is fair to say for some, it can be about the money, not everyone has a couple of thousands laying around all the time for such events. I got asked myself at FITC to speak at MAX and still facing the challenge of generating enough revenue to justify the expense… and then if I do, does it make sense for me to pay the trip and have no time to enjoy the presentations myself?
However, let’s not kid ourselves, we know such expense it’s peanuts to a corporation like Adobe Systems, and there has to be a more powerful reason behind that policy.
I hope they reconsider, and hopefully find a solution.
Cheers.
LA
Couple of small items I couldn’t help noticing about MAX2006 in Las Vegas…
I’ve noticed a couple of items that irk me concerning MAX2006. First up is the lack of sessions concerning Flash Media Server 2. Although I can’t really say I’m too surprised because lately Adobe has just not even been trying to push FMS to the mass…
Aral I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this one. It’s a topic that’s been bugging me for a while and is long overdue to be raised.
I totally agree with Pete, Grant and Geoff’s comments about WebDU. Having spoken there a few times myself, it’s clear that (with all due respect) the guys at Daemon don’t have a tenth of the marketing and administrational budget that Adobe has – and to be tarred with the same brush is not really fair. Anyone who’s spoken at WebDU knows that whilst they can’t necessarily pay for speaker expenses, they make up (in part) by “showering them with love”. By way of gifts, a great BBQ/Party and tonnes of appreciation (and recognition) at every opportunity. Combined with this, WebDU’s existence relies solely on industry sponsorship and community support. Which is why WebDU is very much seen as a ‘community’ conference – ie: it’s not purely an Adobe marketing exercise (as has been mentioned in the past of of MAX..by Adobe’s own staff).
This raises an interesting point. I think all of this simply boils down to marketing – Whether that be Conference Speaker marketing or Adobe product marketing.
Take MAX for example. It’s clear that, for the most part, Adobe sees MAX as purely a marketing exercise. What better way to promote your products than to have the worlds best developers/designers showcasing and endorsing them. Whilst at the same time, providing 100’s of potential future customers with the recipes for success for which they’ll need to use Adobe’s ingredients to build at a later date. Which is why, for the life of me, I could never figure out why Adobe wouldn’t pay for the privilege of having the worlds best developers promote their products. Well known actors in advertisements get paid for promoting products, and they don’t have a fraction of the product knowledge that conference speakers do. So what gives? Surely Adobe is not arrogant enough to think that the mere honour of being selected to speak at MAX is gratitude enough? Ben mentioned that MAX is seen as a financial loss leader for Adobe. Which I simply can’t fathom (perhaps, as Grant mentioned, it boils down to corporate bureaucracy gone mad). I mean, if the likes of independent conferences such as FlashForward, FITC, and Flash on the Beach can manage their budgets to pay for speaker expenses (and also have a little left over afterwards), then surely Adobe can? On top of this, i’d hazard a guess that all of the Adobe staff who are speaking at MAX are having their expenses reimbursed. Yet proxy Adobe Technical Marketing and Promotion staff (aka freelance speakers) are expected to pay their own way for the privilege of promoting Adobe’s products – go figure?
Which brings me to the Speaker marketing point (which think Rob alluded to in his comments). Whilst I definitely agree that speaking at a conference raises a developers public profile (read: marketability) it’s still up to the individual to capitalise on this publicity (conferences are merely a vehicle for this). Aral and Grant are proven experts in this field. Now i’m not saying that their success has come purely out of their exposure at conferences (although i’m sure this has definitely helped), there’s still a lot of hard individual (and often unrewarded) slog involved behind the scenes. As Aral mentioned, a lot of us already give massively (and freely) of our time through User Groups, blogs or online forums. We don’t do this out of financial gain or public profile raising (although this is an indirect by-product). We do this because (on the whole) we all genuinely believe in building the Adobe (Flash/Flex) community.
At the end of the day both Adobe and Conference Speakers are trying to run a business. Now whilst Aral mentioned that his post was not monetary driven (and I totally believe this to be true) I can’t help but think that (part of) his attitude (and I could be totally wrong here) could be due to the fact that he (and the likes of Grant) have reached an international level of status (read: stardom) where they don’t really need to rely on Adobe anymore to increase/maintain their public profile (read: marketability). Yet i’m sure there was once a time (like most of the rest of us) where any promotion was seen as good promotion (whether paid or not). If that promotion came from the likes of Adobe – then all the more better. Having said that, if by proxy of excelling in your chosen field you are held in high esteem within the international community, then as a business entity you’d be mad not to capitalise on that. After all, the love of the job doesn’t pay the bills ;-)
Hi Geoff: I definitely do not place WebDU in the same category as MAX. It is a given that WebDU does not have the resources that Adobe does (who does, really?) However, given that argument, FITC doesn’t have the resources that Adobe does either and neither does John Davey with Flash on the Beach, nor Multi-Mania. Neither did Spark Europe. My point is, none of these other conferences have the resources that Adobe has and yet they sacrifice their own profit (or perhaps not, given that they get the best speakers) and pay for speaker’s expenses.
Although we can’t place WebDU in the same basket as MAX, we also cannot place it in the same basket as FlashForward, FITC, Spark Europe, Multi-Mania or Flash on the Beach.
I stand by my original argument: It is not acceptable for a professional, profit-making conference to not cover, at a minimum, its speakers expenses.
Rob: I’m not sure if you’re implying some how that these other conferences — FlashForward, FITC, Spark Europe, Multi-Mania, Flash on the Beach — take *less* work somehow so they can afford to pay speaker’s expenses. At least three out of that list are community run and yet they manage to do this and make a profit and WebDU cannot because..? I’m sorry, but your argument just doesn’t fly in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. Specifically, it is possible to have a profit-making conference *and* pay your speaker’s expenses.
And how about having people who already have street credibility and are in positions of authority presenting at your conference. Is this not important for the conference? :)
I can afford it but I refuse to on principle. These are two very different things. When I present at an event, I definitely do gain a lot from the experience. If nothing else, I love meeting and interacting with new people. However, make no mistake, my audience gets a lot out of it too. At some point, you have to ask who loses more by not having a good speaker speak at your event: The speaker or the attendees?
“It is not acceptable for a professional, profit-making conference to not cover, at a minimum, its speakers expenses.”
And as already stated, this is not a for profit conference. MAX (and DevCon before it, pre Adobe days) at best tried to cover costs. The conference has never been for profit (and I have been involved in every one of the conferences since the first back in 1999).
This year is worse. Costs will not be covered, and the conference will run a deficit. Las Vegas is one of the most expensive places to host a conference (both for attendees as well as the conference itself). Because of all of the company changes we were very late getting to work on MAX, and less expensive venues were not available.
I am not interested in getting into a debate about the policy of not compensating speakers. I just want to correct the perception that the conference is somehow a money maker. It isn’t.
— Ben
Seems to me (and I’m no speaker by any means) that having a conference at a less expensive venue, would allow for better speakers, paid speakers, cheaper rates for attendees travel, and provide a better conference overall. I had a blast last year at MAX, but truth be told it would have been just as good in Omaha Nebraska, or Tulsa Oklahoma. Granted nobody wants to go vacation there, but the conferences for me are about the event, the community aspect, and the SPEAKERS more so than the city. Having the event at arguably one of the most expensive spots in one of the most expensive cities seems like a bonehead decision to me.
I don’t care if the conference is held in Vegas, SF, NY, or LA if the speakers aren’t there to support it. Sacrifice the venue to get the best talent, pay your speakers expenses, tell the execs they need to stay at a 3 star hotel instead of a 5 star for a few nights.
My $0.02
Aral: “I stand by my original argument: It is not acceptable for a professional, profit-making conference to not cover, at a minimum, its speakers expenses.”
Actually your original post was less of an argument and more a series of derogatory comments.
Aral: “Conferences that make a profit off of the backs of speakers without meeting this minimum standard should not be rewarded for their exploitative policies. (The other conference that comes to mind that doesn’t pay speaker’s expenses is WebDU.) If nothing else, it’s not fair to other conferences that do respect their speakers.”
Say what you like about MAX but keep us out of it ;) When and if webDU does become profitable we will certainly consider speaker expenses. It’s worth noting that Daemon does not run conferences professionally, and to date webdu has not been a profit making exercise.
Given that you applied to speak at webDU, in the full knowledge that we did not pay expenses, and given that we did everything to assist you in defraying your costs at that time I find it astounding that you have made the statements you have regarding webDU and its “exploitation” of speakers. Don’t get me wrong, we’re very happy you made the trip.
When you sweat bullets for something that is esentially community driven it sends you reeling when you get comments like these thrown your way. I’m very grateful to those previously “exploited” webDU speakers who have since contacted us personally with words of encouragement.
Geoff: Again, my post was about MAX. I mentioned that WebDU also doesn’t pay speakers expenses, that’s all. It was a statement of fact and I stand by it.
My point is that Spark Europe, Flash on the Beach and Multi-Mania are also community-driven.
If all these conferences are not making a profit, there’s something greater wrong here. Perhaps Linda or Sean should start running courses on running a profitable conference because they seem to be doing quite all right by it. (And I don’t say that to be sarcastic — if these conferences are truly not profit-making there’s something wrong and it should be addressed.)
Our aim is to produce the best conference we can; not the most profitable. We’re happy with our investment, we just take umbrage with your assertion that we don’t respect our speakers.
Wow… This is obviously a touchy subject… So I’ll try to chose my words carefully ;-)
So let’s see… Max is not making any profit especially this year ’cause Las Vegas is an expensive city for both the host and its attendees… Then the first thing that pops to my mind is: “Why do it in Las Vegas?”. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to come to Vegas ’cause well… a) I’ve never been to a Max conference and b) never been to Vegas but if any other city would have made it possible for Adobe to lower the entrance fee and/or pay the speakers, wouldn’t that have been better for everyone?
But then I start thinking that the entrance fee has never been lower and that speakers apparently never been paid so I guess it’s not only Vegas’ “fault”.
I guess it all comes down to perception. What people think about how much money is made on such an event. A perception that may very well be biased by 1) the entrance fee and 2) looking at the sponsor packages. ’cause all this info is freely available. So if one would add all those things up, they could come to thinking that Adobe is going to be banking over $5 million on entrance fees and sponsorships for this event.
When I left school, I first started working for an event-company so I do know how much an event costs and those costs are not always seen by the public. But if, back then, I could have organized a better event and cheaper for both the host and attendees by moving to another location, I would have certainly considered that.
Bottom line… There will always be people who are willing to speak at such events at no costs for the host. Hell, I’d have to admit that I wouldn’t think twice if they asked me. But you probably only do that once. The next time they call you, you will first think about the costs involved and decide later if it’s worth it. And we should all respect ones decision for not wanting to pay $2000 to speak at a conference.
Wow… This must have been the longest comment I ever wrote on a blog ;-)
All conferences are marketing events. Attendees and sponsors pay a lot of money to help defray the costs, but the truth of the matter is, whether the event makes money or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, more software will be sold.
Did Al Gore and Ze Frank pay their expenses at last year’s conference? I doubt that most of the conference knew Al was there or who Ze was (thank you Google for helping me remember). On the other hand, I will bet that most attendees knew who several of the session speakers were and couldn’t wait to attend their sessions. How are Al and Ze any different from the other speakers?
Many of us commenting here are in the same boat. We work very hard to be the best at what we do. Self-promotion is a known byproduct of public speaking, but that is paid forward with the countless hours spent exploring the limits of the software that we are known as “experts” in and time spent preparing content for presentation.
I’m with Aral, cover the expenses for all speakers.
It may be worth noting that in past, they did cover expenses if you did a pre-conference training day in addition to your presentation. But they also charge extra for the training.
Adobe purchased Macromedia…Adobe’s stock was up to the sky already…Macromedia had made a fortune in profits, year after year…
And now Adobe, the ‘behemoth titan’ is really set to overhaul dynamic content and change the web in a way not seen since its inception…
Every seminar, whether online or a 3-day event in Vegas, is a commercial-promotional vehicle for Adobe, with the goal of selling ‘more’ software to ‘more’ multi-user prospects.
They should invite anyone & everyone who’s developing, producing or delivering dynamic media to come & ‘be their guests’…
I’ve always thought it was rediculous to pay outragious entrance fees to ‘learn about what I need to buy’…Yes Adobe and every other company that uses freelance talent should pay for their services…and No, they shouldn’t charge astronomical fees to attend their commercial, regardless of how informative…Its a business expense…It’s called marketing and self promotion.
I have to say I am sympathetic to both sides of the argument here. As a former non-Adobe employee I paid for trips to MAX and UCON before it. The other side of the coin is the value one gets from speaking at a top tier conference like Adobe MAX. MAX attracts the top companies into a single location and your knowledge is center stage.
I can count numerous consulting projects that I received from having spoken at MAX/UCON over the years. Actually for MAX 2003 the follow-up consulting work totaled about $95,000 in new projects not to mention contacts and invaluable exposure to larger companies. Speaking at MAX paid for itself some 30 times over.
The opportunity to speak when larger companies are listening is how you get larger consulting projects and raise your salary/rates. If the cost of admission to the big leagues of consulting is a flight, hotel, food, that is a bargain in my book.
I have been an Adobe employee since May of this year. The experience has been simply amazing, it is the best job I have ever had. There are thousands of really passionate people at Adobe who work very hard to make amazing products. When you are on the outside all you see is the price of a license, when you are on the inside you see the hard work being poured into the products and it really changes you.
Actually I am working on a project using Breeze to bring conference quality sessions to the Internet year round for free. If any speaker is interested providing a session for FlexTV please feel free to contact me at tpatrick@adobe.com.
Aral, I expect your session on Flex/PHP will be killer as usual!
Regards, see you at MAX 2006.
Ted :)
With all respect adobe, MAX, ben
But I can’t figure out how a $1k per attendent can’t covers the expensives to bring an event to be released?
If I’m not clear, since 2003 yahoo! sponored since that the MAX, and Ben really dificult to belive that MAX isn’t to profit, last year I tried to get in but problems with Embassy denied my visit to attend at MAX, but the incredible support that both guys of organization was incredible.
Charges the expensive of Speaker’s kinds me as a wrosth, I guess, because in mind I figure out that Speaker’s at most famous conferences arround the world, could be paid for their efforts to populate and divulg the Company’s products.
In my view it was a minimous that a company like Adobe can’t charge the speakers expensives due the fact that Adobe has large sponors and bought Macromedia for $3.4Bi etc etc the 6th major company can’t pay theses taxes for speakers?
I guess it could be change the policy because all those speakers that made the conference wants to share their view, their passion, but with respect of their expensives.
I don’t want to blame the moral of Adobe or some into there, but I’m very surprised with all steps, because I was in mind that all conferences not expecially MAX, WebDU, FITC could pay the expensive’s speaker.
So, This terrible due to good speakers that I know (aral, grant skinner, Keith, JoeyLott, Robert Reinhardt,Lord, etc) are well viewed as a good evangelist of flash platform as wide, and makes me belive that I’ve never see both guys again if the policy been stay like that.
Move on, change it.
Try having a MAX conference in NYC… It seems like they have it everywhere else except the Northeast.
Very interesting discussion here.
What I’d like to add is this: profit or not, MAX is organized and run by Adobe (which is what, the fifth largest software company on the planet?) and while it’s essentially a Developers conference it’s also a major PR and Marketing excercise for Adobe. Why else was Las Vegas chosen as a venue? It’s all about perception, isn’t it?
I know a thing or two about the size of marketing budgets that companies such as Adobe have at their disposal – they could *easily* afford to pay for expenses, they wouldn’t even notice. Adobe is a company that calculates its yearly revenue in billions of dollars! Let me say that again: billions. I mean come on…
Sure, it’s a privilege for speakers to present at MAX but it’s not a one way street, Adobe should acknowledge that they are fortunate to have such high profile people there, apparently for free. The fact that developers can land big projects at these conferences is not a good enough reason for not paying expenses – not everyone is after new business 24/7.
Two things I’d like to know from Adobe:
- what is the reasoning behind not paying? (not making a profit is a lame excuse)
- could we see a breakdown of costs for the event?
Stefan
Definitely hit a nerve here too. A couple random comments:
–Ben, with all due respect I totally believe the conference itself won’t be making a profit. I for one will drink more than my fair share of beer. But, in the end, I can promise Adobe makes money indirectly. You’re not saying the conference is some sort of charity to pay back all the developers right?
–I can only assume Adobe’s reason for this policy is one of the following three reasons (but I’m speculating):
a) they don’t have to, so why do it. This brings up the “it isn’t fair” comment which I don’t quite understand. They SHOULD do it because they’ll see they’ll get an even better conference. Speakers will take it more seriously.
b) they think the payback to speakers is valuable. There they’re wrong. For sure there’s a value to the speaker. But if you’re up there sellilng something to the audience no one will like it. And, if the basis of not paying is that the speaker gets to sell something, then that’s just not what people want to go to a conference for.
c) they simply can’t afford it. Well, that’s obviously not the reason, but because they don’t make money directly on the conference then some backwards thinker probably thinks this makes sense (not to pay).
Anyway, every time I spoke I suggested they pay just a nominal honorarium. The breaking point for me was when I had to give the same talk 4 times! So much for their argument that I got a “free” ticket to the conference. Not exactly a full value if 1/2 the time I’m speaking.
I’ll be glad when this entire topic is moot.
I can’t agree more with your assessment of noncompensated speaking engagements for those conferences charging attendees money. I make a number of donated speaking engagements and workshops annually to third world contries and domestic groups not charging entry fees for conferences.
The absurdity for some conference promoters charging money and not paying speakers (and the really absurd conferences that let you in for free for your session(s) but charge you if you want to attend the general conference) needs to stop.
All speakers should unite and refuse to carry on this practice practice. Conference promoters use speaker names of notables to attract attendees to conferecnes and many don’t even offer reimbursement of expenses for travel and logding. I, for one, have stopped attending such conferences and join all those who want to be part of a coalition to end what has become a common practice.
ted
Even if your principle was justified, don’t you think it’s a little childish to refuse to speak because of such? It rings so spitefully of “Well, if I don’t get my way, nobody else does either.” The people who attend the event are not involved with any sort of evil corporate greed behind Adobe, they just simply want to see and learn from some of the most proficient flash developers in the field. Personally, I don’t think such people deserve to get hit with idealistic shrapnel if you have no problems affording accommodations for yourself, as you say.
“People attend conferences primarily to listen to the sessions given by the speakers who present there. If it wasn’t for the speakers, there wouldn’t be a conference.”
Speakers attend conferences primarily to speak to the audience that attends such conferences. If it wasn’t for the audience, there wouldn’t be any speakers.
Are you really so naive to assume that the audience which attends the festival is comprised only of the collective sum of all users that read the presenters’ blogs? I know you didn’t overtly state this, however, let me remind you of something. You are presenting to Adobe’s userbase. This group of people comprises a large market segment and a valuable asset that the company has spent a *very* significant amount of resources building. The audience is there mostly because of resources expended by Adobe. The conference is a platform for you to reach hundreds of thousands of people and connect to the community from a specific forum and at a specific “volume”, on a specific “frequency”, that would otherwise be impossible without Adobe.
Whether you recognize it or not, Adobe is offering you an extremely valuable opportunity. For every developer that walks off, Adobe will have no problems finding another developer who is grateful for what he *has* been given, rather than disappointed in what he comparatively has not.
I know you have a nice little spotlight with a nice little audience, and I know you are extremely good at what you do. Without diminishing any of that, I have some unfortunate news for you; you are not as valuable as you think you are.
Even if you think everything I have said up to this point is complete bullshit, just remember the following: A man is like a fraction whose numerator is what he is, and whose denominator is what he thinks of himself. The larger the denominator, the smaller the fraction.
That math in the last post is making my head hurt. The inference I’m reading is that speaking at MAX is such a wonderful opportunity–and, in many ways it is. The problem with that argument is that it relies on an assumption a speaker can sell his stuff on stage. It’s not a vehicle to sell something to the audience. I’ve spoken at a ton of conferences and all a speaker has to do is hint at something sounding like a sales job and he’ll get a bunch of negative feedback. People don’t like spending money to attend a conference and then get sold-to.
I think it makes sense for speakers to stand on their principles. Now… I personally won’t take it as far as to not attend the conference because of their bad policies. I mean, this whole discussion is to HELP Adobe. We’re doing a favor by telling them their policy is wrong. (Why waste our time otherwise?)
Because Adobe hasn’t replied I’ll say that my best guess for why they don’t pay is that there’s an accountant person who says “we don’t have to pay, so we shouldn’t pay”. Naturally I disagree with the logic… but whatever. I could also be wrong for the rational on their side.
By the way, it’s a fact that myself and everyone I know has gotten hotel and airfare paid by Macromedia when speaking at conferences overseas. What’s the logic there? Is there some magic threshold of expense cost that triggers the gate open on the money slide?
Finally, I do think that Adobe employees who find this discussion perplexing should simply answer this: are you paying for your trip to this conference? Sure, I consider my admission a cost of my business… and I really don’t mind paying–I think the conference is a good value. However, I’m not speaking there. I have spoken at every Macromedia US conference from 96-2003. I think they gave me some software once… a thank you letter once or twice. And that’s it! I’m not greedy but I also know that some other conferences really go out of their way to tell you you’re appreciated. With all due respect to the hard working and sincere MM/Adobe employees (really, I mean it)… the MAX conference gives me–as a speaker–a bad vibe. I think this also rubs off on attendees.
“Speakers attend conferences primarily to speak to the audience that attends such conferences. If it wasn’t for the audience, there wouldn’t be any speakers.”
This is an interesting point. It also applies to other things like universities and training courses (if there were no students, you couldn’t teach them) and also to the theater and cinema (if there was not audience you couldn’t entertain them.) In fact, it even applies to you and your job (if there were not customers you couldn’t work for them.) Following your line of logic, we should all be doing what we do for free and be grateful that we’re being given the opportunity to work.
I have to say that I cannot agree with this point of view.
Phillip’s basically summarized how I feel about all this very elegantly so I won’t re-hash what he’s written regarding the other points that were raised.
I see guest passes for the special event this year have also went sky high.
The past MAX conferences I attended, guest passes were only $50-$75 and this year it’s $425.00-$500.00! That’s alot of money for two – 2 hour reception/parties!
I noticed it too–I’ll bet it will be cool… more than a 2 hour reception. Because Blue Man Group is at the Venetian, I’m going to speculate that it’s a private showing for everyone.
Yeah. That would be really cool. I definitely hope it’ll be more than drinks, food and a few DJ’s spinning some tunes. I kind of wish they would tell you what’s happening since its a big chunk of cash for your spouse…
“Now… I personally won’t take it as far as to not attend the conference because of their bad policies…”
Phillip, thank you for your point of view.
As one of the humble students who looks to the experts for the content of these engagements. I have to feel like, regardless of cause, the developers [me] will lose the most in a boycott.
Serge mentioned earlier that, “There will always be people who are willing to speak at such events at no costs for the host”. W/o having all speakers at every level of their careers in terms of street value, boycotting the event… Speakers union anyone ? :)
Where are the speakers banding together to host smaller speaking events during the week, showing that a hungry developer community needs more? Ala carte. (CF_Undergroud-style).
I would suppose this discussion wouldn’t have been nearly so long if MAX wasn’t an attractive venue and a cf community standard event. That being said, changing within the system and creating parallel events or other creative ways of exposing the flaws in the event planning shortcomings (and covering costs to prove it) might go a long way to make Adobe listen.
(and I echo prior comments on how ludicrous it is for this event to be in the red…priorities?)
Many of us will be there all week and wouldn’t have a hard time getting our own corporations to pay per-head admission to smaller more targeted events while we are there. Hell, the alternative spending it at the tables in our free time anyway. And there’s plenty of time for us to schedule a slot away from that!
I just thought of something else while browsing the sessions scheduled for MAX. It seems like the list of speakers is all but hidden from the website. Maybe it’s not intentional, but as a consumer trying to figure out who all is speaking–for example, I wanted to see which session Jesse is doing–I found it impossible to find out.
[...] I was delighted to hear on Ben Forta’s blog that Adobe’s main conference, MAX 2006, will be breaking attendance records this year with more than 3,000 people attending. Hopefully, this will mean that next year, they’ll be able to afford to pay speaker’s expenses! [...]
I thought flash forward was bad (they don’t give me much when I go). Thats completely unacceptable. I hate the feeling of being asked to speak so that they can make money yet being told they wont pay us for our time. I think its total exploitation and should be stopped. We are not made of money and always give charity so Adobe/etc can fill their pockets.
[...] Yes, it’s true, I’m speaking at MAX 2007 this year. But why, after being so vocally against their policies in the past? Simple. Because Adobe listened and they’re making an effort to change, starting with the MAX conferences this year. [...]
I have been teaching in the bay area for the past 8 years and when Adobe asked me to speak at Adobe MAX 2008 I was honored, until I found that they needed me to have a corporate sponsor with $70,000 to speak for 60 minutes. My problem with this, 1.) 60 minutes is a good starting point but should be left open for more classroom communication. 2.) My Speaking would give insight to some key aspects of development in FLEX, ASP.net, LAMP Solutions as well as FLASH Video and Animation but what is there as a benefit to everyone who has to pay adobe to be there for such a little bit of time and take it all in. The information doesn’t even come from Adobe, we should have more user groups like our old MMUSR Group (MM = macromedia, remember guys?). I decided to meet with my clients, students and fellow instructors in my own time, it would be cheaper and far more economical with greater advancement for us, rather then adobe. I just feel for those who do not live in San Francisco with as many contacts and resources in the city as me to lean on, no wonder our economy is failing. To learn more about me and my classes that take the training to you, visit ICAMD.org; International Concepts in Animation and Mulitmedia Design.
-editor of ICAMD.org [editor @ icamd.org]
you’ve been tiny-urled: http://www.tinyturl.com/adobe-bs from this video: http://www.tinyurl.com/frugal-businessman
[...] It’s about that time of year where a few of us Flash speakers get together and have a good old whinge about Adobe’s speaker expense policy. In fact it’s become somewhat of an annual tradition. [...]