Diseconomy of Scale

[vakkotaur]

- or -
Size Matters, but not that way.

Looking back at faires, the furry cons I've been to, and some other gatherings and outtings, I've noticed something. The larger the group and gathering, the less fun it is for me.

It's not that big is automatically bad, but it's not a good way to start. "You and 200 of your closest friends" makes for a good joke, but it is just that, a joke. A larger gathering may have more variety to offer, but it can also be overwhelming. Where does one start? Indeed, is there a place to start, even? A smaller group means I can really meet people, rather than just get introductions which will fade as more introductions are piled on top of them.

This seems true for all gatherings. I first noticed it with the Animanias (not the anime gatherings, the real Animanias). But it has held, so far, for furry cons and faires as well. The only way to deal with a large group is to chop it up and deal with a small piece - and then hope you don't miss something by picking the wrong piece.

Something as simple as going out to eat can get complicated if too many are involved. A couple examples come from RCFM. The supersponsor dinner worked because although it was a fairly large group to get together for a meal, it was planned in advance. This meant no, or at least not too much, hassle over getting everyone together at a certain time and agreeing on where to go.

A much smaller group was assembled, or nearly assembled, the next night. It was almost two cars of folks with the problem of getting everyone to agree to go, agree on when, and where. It was to my great relief that it did NOT happen that way. With one carload (admittedly cramped) those decisions are just that much easier. Also, all could sit at one table and converse and have an idea of who was who. This is important for someone who doesn't already know everybody and also doesn't instantly pick that sort of thing up.

Something happened this past weekend that reinforced the above. There was no malice. The intent was good. And, from reports, most folks had a good time. Yet somehow it just didn't seem to work for me. It might have been that the crowd density was high. Or, that things happened such that I wound up not near anyone I knew for a while, and an assumption was made by someone that left me uncomfortable. The result was that I left a gather early - at a time and place I'd never have expected I'd bail out of. I actually felt bad about bringing my folks into it. Fortunately the rest of weekend was more as I had expected it to be.

It's not that I want to be isolated. It's that I want to be able to get things done without it taking forever and that I don't want to get lost in, or lose someone else in, a crowd. So, as I see it, bigger is not better. As the crowd grows the apparent value of each person in it seems to decrease, as people fade into little more than interchangeable carbon-based automata. "The more the merrier" doesn't hold true. "The more, the more wearing" is perhaps more the case. The cost of a larger group is bigger. Oh yes, there can be economies of scale if everyone wants the same thing and orders in bulk or such. But that is an unusual circumstance. A larger group is harder to keep organized and is more hassle than a smaller group. That hassle can easily outweigh anything else. That's the diseconomy of scale.

Comments

[malterre.livejournal.com]

I agree with the "number of people assessment." I prefer intense, smaller gatherings. I think that larger numbers contribute to a feeling of shallow interaction and lack of true communication. I have many friends, few close friends, HUGE ROILING NUMBERS of aquaintances.

It's a very "clan" mentality. ;-)

[chakawolf.livejournal.com]

I agree. I always tell people that if you want to meet people and have fun, go to smaller cons, if you want to see wierd stuff, go to the big cons. ;-) If I am forced to cut out a con or two next year (likely) it will be AC and FC. Those cons are fun, but not like RCFM, MFM, MFF and Megaplex are fun. Yeah, MFF is big, but it still has that small con feel to it, at least for me.

Pushy me

[jugularjaguar.livejournal.com]

I am told I am a pushy person. I push people too much. I can see that but some folks seem to take all the time in the world. I think it is better to preplan when you can though I have had enjoyable times in spontanious events also.

Just a matter of getting people to go. I think all that delays comes from tring to make everyone happy. It just does not happen.

Re: Pushy me

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

If you're pushy, it's not that pushy from my experience. Encouraging and hopeful might be more the case. As for how I might get more involved in stuff (yes, I do recall that question last Sunday night) I'm still not entirely sure.

On the drive back I pondered a few tunes I was listening tune and how they might be put to use in a show. I've also been pondering something a bit more involved but I want to know more about a few things before I go further than just thinking about it.

Re: Pushy me

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

Er, make that, "..from late Sunday night."

[in-tu-it.livejournal.com]

Heya, Brody here. I have a question:

It is the point of just about every meet and convention to grow and be more successful every year. How can the average convention retain what you like about intimate gatherings while still trying its best to grow and be profitable?

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure it can. If there is a way, I'm not really aware of it or I'd be telling a good many folks what it was.

But I'm also not sure the assumption that growth is good and the proper measure of success is valid. The Siouxland Renaissance Festival (http://www.siouxlandrenfest.com/) is an example. Folks have asked if they would be expanding. The somewhat surprising answer was "no" or at least "no, not until we're sure of things." By remaining small they retain what they have - and they have an excellent reputation all around. They have the ability to rotate vendors and performers and see who they like. They have more applicants for vending and performing than space and time, so can be selective. If one becomes a problem, they can find a willing replacement without much effort. They might grow yet, but they're taking it slow to be sure of what works and what to avoid - and they asked those questions and listened to the feedback even before they really began. (I know, I was there when it is was still in the "do you suppose we might.." stage.)

While a FurCon and a renfaire are not the same thing, the above suggests to me that growth isn't always a feature. At least rapid growth is not. I have also seen events that bit off more than they could chew, trying to do too much at once. They no longer exist, save as memories and broken dreams.

Perhaps now that I have met some folks it might be easier for me to get along in a larger gathering - but I needed the smaller event to meet them. AnthroCon overwhelmed me and I spent more time looking for people than with them. I'm not sure that aspect of population or population density is avoidable. A couple years earlier some friends of mine went to AC and used it mainly a backdrop to their own mini-gathering and had a fairly good time of it. They made their own small event by carving it out of the bigger event - but they could do that as they already knew each other. For them AC was not entirely the point, but perhaps a convenient meeting place or an excuse.

I would like to point that I am not ragging on AnthroCon. AC is a good event or set of events. It was just too big for me to start there. I'm planning on going to Midwest FurFest this November and seeing how I like it. Maybe it'll still be small enough for me. Or maybe I'll know enough folks from RCFM (and LJ and IRC...) that the size won't be much of a concern.