| Subject: Re: Venues |
Author:
Tim
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:58:28 05/22/03 Thu
In reply to:
Tanya
's message, "Re: Venues" on 15:43:23 05/22/03 Thu
Stoke is North of Birmingham, therefore in the North.
My point stands that the midlands (Birmingham, Stoke, Blackpool) is not a utilitarian solution to locating IVDA. It would be better for the larger universities to subsidise the smaller universities and have the competition further south. That would be more cost effective than having it further North. The aggregate travel cost of a Southern IVDC is less than that for a Northern IVDC. Furthermore, more revenue and dancers are lost is Southampton don't come than if quite a few smaller Northern Universities don't come.
Personally, I don't believe that people would be put off by a couple of extra pounds cost, and the facts don't support that view - this year IVDC was £2 more expensive, yet the number of entries increased by more than 30%, whilst the number of spectators was also significantly higher.
However, this obviously (a) only considers costs, and; (b) takes a static picture of the circuit, and has no regard for grand ambitions such as extending the geographical extension of IVDA.
All I want to say is:
1) That a more complete justification for locating IVDC in the Midlands is required than, "it's central".
2) That price sensitivity of dancers seems to be at worst low, at best negative.
3) I should point out that cheaper venues are not always cheaper, since they may attract less spectator revenue.
4) That a "central" venue may not be a pareto efficient solution (i.e. it might be better to make people better off without making anyone worse off by changing to a Southern venue and introducing a system of subsidisation. This should be looked into.)
>>What is the appropriate centre to consider. Suppose
>>that what we want to do is to minimse travel costs for
>>the majority of people. Then the best place to hold
>>the competition is nowhere near the centre of the
>>country, and certainly not in the North, where Stoke
>>is.
>
>Stoke is in the Midlands - not exactly north!
>
>Why? Because there is a high concentration of
>>larger universities in the South, whilst there are a
>>small number of small universities in the North.
>>Oxford, IC, Cambridge, Bristol, London, Southampton
>>are all in the south. Of the larger teams, only
>>Sheffield are in the South. Taking a total number of
>>teams, most are in the South, and a lot are in the
>>South East. Southampton and Cambridge are both large
>>teams, where York and Hull are not.
>>Taking a demongraphically weighted centre for the
>>country, IVDC would be held somewhere around,
>>ironically, Oxford.
>
>So, lets see, we keep the venue close to the big
>university teams, and forget about the smaller teams -
>who then have to fork out much higher travel expenses
>and leave at 4 or 5 am to make it on time. There is
>no large team backing them and thus helping spread
>some of the financial burden. Wouldn't this actually
>push out some of the smaller teams - doing the
>opposite of what the constitution states:
>
>he aim of the Inter-Varsity Dance Association (IVDA)
>is to promote ballroom dancing within universities,
>and organise an annual ball incorporating an
>Inter-Varsity Dancing Competition (IVDC).
>
>>You also have to remember that the total travel cost
>>difference per person is unlikely to be more than a
>>couple of pounds anyway. That's one pint, for goodness
>>sake, and you are all rich students, with next to no
>>liabilities or expenses, leaching off the states and
>>the taxes of honest, hard-working people like myself.
>
>I don't know how it is for the larger teams, but a few
>extra pounds (actually 2 or 3 pints up here!) can put
>people off coming. The smaller teams don't expect to
>do all that well, so often feel that the extra long
>day and the extra cash is not worth it!
>
>Tanya
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
