By Rcade: At the 2021 Worldcon in Washington D.C., a sponsorship by Raytheon caused such a furious backlash that convention chair Mary Robinette Kowal apologized and announced that the con was donating an equal amount to an organization devoted to peace.
Two years later millions of dollars were spent on the Chengdu Worldcon by commercial and Chinese government sponsors, funding expenses that included event promotion, airfare and lodging for all Hugo Awards nominees and convention committee members, shuttles between the hotel and convention center, human translators at events and tourist excursions to the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding.
These sponsorships will not be accounted for in the convention’s financial report, Chengdu Worldcon co-chair Ben Yalow revealed during a panel discussion in December at Smofcon, a conference for convention planners. “None of that appears on our financial report because we didn’t get any money out of the deal. The convention never saw that money. What the convention saw was Hugo finalists who would show up and their plane ticket was taken care of and their hotel room was taken care of. It means that our financial report is completely accurate and totally misleading.”
The panel was titled “What Can We Learn from Chengdu?” and included three members of the convention’s committee: Yalow, advisor Helen Montgomery and business meeting chair Donald Eastlake III. The other panelists were Vincent Docherty, an advisor to the upcoming 2024 Glasgow Worldcon, and Marie Vibbert, a 2023 Hugo nominee who made the trip to China. The moderator was Tammy Coxen, chair of the 2014 Detroit NASFiC convention.
In late January, John S of Ersatz Culture called attention to the Smofcon panel as part of his ongoing reporting about problems with Chengdu. The discussion drew further scrutiny after Chris M. Barkley and Jason Sanford revealed last week that Chengdu Hugo Awards administrator Dave McCarty manipulated the nominations and final vote, excluding some top vote getters after his team investigated nominees for anything political in their work or life that might cause concerns in the host country.
The hour-long Smofcon panel was a discussion of how future Worldcons could potentially emulate Chengdu, where Yalow said “damn near everything” was funded by sponsors.
When the first audience question began with a comment that sponsor dollars bought “splashy” presentations but communications with members before the con would’ve also been nice, Coxen interjected before any panelists could respond. “What I wanted to focus this panel on was not the tearing down but the building up,” she said. “What can we take away, what can we learn.”
There was a lot of enthusiasm on the panel for Worldcons aggressively pitching their event to sponsors, tempered with the reality that opportunities would be far smaller than they were in China.
Yalow offered this advice: “When we went to sponsors and said are you interested in sponsoring it … the way you had to structure that pitch is not what benefits can the convention can get out of it. The way the pitches were always structured is what benefit does the sponsor — or the government in the case of government sponsorship — what benefit does that person or that organization get out of it. A pitch that says ‘Well we can do all of these really cool things’ is a failed pitch.”
Chengdu sponsors “were not particularly intrusive,” Yalow said, but the con could not change a sponsored panel’s scheduled time or panelists without consulting that sponsor. The only disclosure of the commercial arrangement was in the backdrop of the panel, not in any convention publications. “From the person on the other side of the table, the person sitting in the audience, it looked exactly the same,” he said.
There was one part of Chengdu that disallowed sponsors. “One of our ‘do not break this rule ever under any circumstance’ was no sponsorship in respect to the Hugos,” Yalow said.
The WSFS Constitution, which sets the rules of Worldcon, grants members the right to examine a Worldcon’s “financial records and books of account.”
As the panel was nearing its close, the issue of financial transparency was raised for the first time by a questioner in an online chat visible to the panelists and audience but not shown on video.
The moderator Coxen read the question aloud: “One of the objections to Raytheon as a sponsor for DC 3 was not just who they were but the perceived lack of transparency around it. How do you think we could reconcile that with the effective but relatively subtle sponsorship Chengdu had?”
She responded jocularly. “Nobody knew who the sponsors were, at least from the West, so nobody asked you hard questions about them from the West!”
Yalow dodged the question. “That’s a political question that is in a sense above my pay grade,” he said.
Helen Montgomery answered, “As the chairperson of Chicon 8, coming in right after the whole Raytheon thing at DisCon, we were like, OK here’s our sponsorship policy, which we’d been working on — we had to change it after Raytheon. … I can’t quite get my head around the words, I’m sorry. I think it’s a really tricky balance. The people who come to Worldcon want Worldcon to do more and more and more. And we’ve tried really hard to do the more and more and more. But we are at a point where we can’t do more unless we get more money. So do we charge attendees more so we can do more? We’re going to get all kinds of pushback around that. Our other alternative is sponsorship, right? And like I’m saying about the position Seattle is in. Boeing is right frickin’ there but Boeing does military stuff. That balance is just so hard and I don’t have a good answer to that question.”
In her apology for accepting the Raytheon donation, DisCon III chair Kowal offered three action items for future conrunners to avoid making the same mistake: “Developing a sponsorship policy for your organization that reflects the values and concerns of our community. Creating a robust plan for doing due diligence on potential sponsors. Creating a mission and value statement against which to measure actions.”
A final question at the Smofcon panel was about the Hugo nominee Vibbert, who revealed she was offered an honorarium and turned it down because of concerns about the sponsor. An audience member asked if she would share the company’s name.
“She said that was Huawei,” Coxen responded.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
All these things cost a lot of money.
Thank god, and there were people talking about smofcon40 in public. My feeling about the two meetings in smofcon40 is worse. Here I want to quote my own words:
The things praised in the “What can we learn from Chengdu?” panel are those I have criticised strictly. How strange! There must be something wrong with my brain.
I want to say that all the Worldcon, even a Worldcon in Dubai, should not spend money like in Chengdu. The sponsorship was pale in Chengdu, and I believe the financial will be a big problem.
It is so apparent that even Ben Yalow didn’t know what was happening to money at that time. They didn’t know and couldn’t imagine the amount and the source of money that supported so many promotions, events, and buildings. But I know. Most of them came from investments from the government. The investment is not from “We communicated with local government and persuaded them to believe the Worldcon would be widely reported, ” as Chen Shi described.
So this is pale. They, I mean Ben Yalow and his friends, were isolated from the core work of Worldcon like we used to imagine on January 20th 2023.
I am willing to share my more radical opinions about the two meetings and sponsorships if I have enough time.
Simple answer: BAN ALL SPONSORSHIP, period, end of discussion.
SMOFs want to do more and more? Fine, run your own con, not the FAN-BASED Worldcon. Let’s have less… let’s have cons like they used to be, a place for the family that’s fandom to gather. This isn’t a fucking comicon, with big money – this is for us, and by us, not for sponsors.
No, most panels at WorldCons or other fan-run science fiction conventions don’t have a sponsor’s name and logo behind them.
If it’s “above the pay grade” of the co-chair,” then who exactly should be responding?
Except, of course, for the Hugo finalists whose flights and hotel expenses were paid for by sponsors.
Chen Shi, Liang Xiaolan, Yao Chi, Wang Yating, the gang of four should be responsible for it.
Chen tried to escape from it. You can see I described his answer, a very blurry description in my last response. @Lis Carey
When a worldcon — or a local or regional convention goes to potential sponsors, they should go with a list of what items can be sponsored and for what amounts. For example, sponsor the con suite for an hour — like book publishers sometimes do at regionals to publicize a book release — for $X; sponsor it for, say, 3 hours for $Y. Don’t sponsor panels, but sponsor rooms (rental, water service, etc.) for given amounts. Sponsor the printing and distribution of publications. Sponsor the purchase of equipment. But ALWAYS have a detailed list that specifies what items and what amounts, and don’t take sponsorship for things that aren’t appropriate no matter how much the potential sponsor offers.
It seems that not only have we not learned from the Raytheon issue, but that many western conrunners also seem to have learned the completely wrong lessons from Chengdu.
Also how can the con chair not be aware of who the sponsors are? How can he know that the Chinese equivalent of Raytheon or something even worse is not one of them?
I’m not against sponsorships per se, as long as it’s ethical and transparent, e.g. Google sponsoring the auto-captioning for Discon III and I think also Chicon 8.
But as a frequent program participant, I would find it disturbing if a sposor determined the topic of a panel and the panelists, though I would tolerate a logo on the wall. Though even a logo on the wall could be problematic, e.g. if there are potential moral issues with the company (who’d want to sit under a Raytheon logo?) or simply if a panelist happens to be working for a competitor in their day job. Even a Coke logo can be problematic, if you work for Pepsi.
But then, the Chengdu panels that were available to stream online were all on rather odd topics and not the sort of topics you’d normally find at a western Worldcon.
In 2018 I was not happy to be given a lanyard branded by It’s Not Evil When We Do It, Inc., and quite glad I’d thought to bring my own.
(Which is branded by the Society for Crypto Judaic Studies, which occasionally led to interesting questions.)
If anyone reading this was a Hugo Awards nominee, were you also offered an honorarium by Huawei or another sponsor? How much was the amount?
Obviously some people might not want to share this information, but I thought I would ask. It seemed from watching the panel that some participants were unaware of the honorariums.
Fandom has perfected the art of running a Worldcon on the cheap, and the main reason we go is to see each other. Most Worldcons don’t lose money. We don’t need sponsorships. It’s nice if someone want to give us money, but generally we can afford to say no. Chengdu was weird, not just because of the extras that were covered by sponsorships, but the basics were too. Probably someone will say that is just how SF conventions have to work in China. Chinese fans don’t have lots of money. But neither did US and UK fans when Worldcon was getting started.
So far there appears to be no mention of corporate sponsorship on the Glasgow website – just an acknowledgement of the support of Mythic Beasts a privately owned ISP service that hosts the website. Hopefully any such support will be made public and will not be controversial!
The one thing that Worldcon has to “sell” to sponsors are the Hugos and the awards ceremony.
Chengdu has done one good thing in that regard, by demonstrating that the Hugos can garner international attention. (Heh)
How many viewers?
So sell the awards ceremony. The award for best novel this year is presented by Bob’s Bail Bond’s. ‘Open 24/7. For all your get out of jail needs. ”
Of course, the awards for DPL and DPS will be scheduled last, and the Fan awards will wither away because the “audience” isn’t interested in “amateurs” and, “what’s with all this Regency stuff? Did you not see Zendaya the other day? You got to glam it up…the camera needs the visuals, baby!
Now let’s see…who can our MC insult who we can encourage to storm the stage and deliver a slap? That’ll REALLY jazz up the numbers.
Oh hey, there’s another issue we’ve been meaning to talk about. Our research suggests that a sizable demographic objects to the phallic nature of the award…
And the entire building where the ceremony took place.
Well, I can see why Some People didn’t want this public.
And as long as I’m here, I’m going to put in an utterly unsolicited plug with no sponsorship involved:
Go read Francesca Myman’s two long postings about Chengdu last night on the Facebook group JOF (“Journeyplatypi Of Fandom”). Yes, they are worth giving Zuck more clicks.
I would but I could not find them. Links?
Uh, VERY IMPORTANT NO EXCUSE FOR IT CORRECTION to the above: it wasn’t on JOF. It was on Francesca’s Facebook page. But I imagine a lot of you are following her already.
@mark: what would you like cut?
For example, sponsorship is often used for access needs. A CART person costs $2,000 for 4 hours of work, and setting up is included in the 4 hours. ASL interpreters cost $60/hour each, and need to be hired in pairs (you try waving your hands around for an hour).
More venues are requiring individual servings of food and drink, if they allow it at all. Single serve packages of chips and soda in cans is a lot more expensive than buying in bulk. Never mind how prices have gone up overall. And let’s not go into how hotel contracts have become less favorable.
Hybrid technology is incredibly expensive, with a dedicated internet drop ($200+/day), multiple computers, servers, video switchers, a professional paid Zoom (or whatever) account, a way to provide registrants almost instant access online, a schedule that can provide embedded links, numerous volunteers, microphones, speakers, professional sound equipment, integrated hardware and software, cameras, and more.
Increasingly, volunteers expect free memberships, food, and housing. They don’t just work for a shirt any more. Program participants also expect free memberships (which some cons provide, and some don’t), not only for themselves, but also for a partner. And sometimes for their children.
Advertising is expensive, and we’re bad at it. (Note: your biggest bang for a buck is a billboard, weirdly. It’s been studied.) Publications are hideously expensive. And finding advertisers for your publications is almost impossible as corporate budgets get cut. Cons don’t even get publisher parties any more.
Every price increase is met with resistance. Why should I spend $100 on a 3 day con when I can go to my local gate show for half the price? So there’s external pressure to keep prices low.
So yes, cons turn to outside sponsors. They have to, because members demand more, give less, and costs go up.
I think sponsorships are going to be key going forward, things are just going to get more expensive, but we need transparency.
Ben also just needs to resign from the MPC, or they need to vote him off. It’s clear he’s representing continuing business interests that arose from the WorldCon.
If the venue, the hotel fees for some (all?) GOHs and meals were sponsored, does that mean that Glasgow is going to get a windfall when monies are passed from last year’s con to this year’s?
I would be deeply shocked if Glasgow sees any money from Chengdu. Transferring significant sums out of China is tricky even for well organized operations with clear relationships.
I remember going to a Worldcon years ago. I think it was in Glasgow and Wizards of the Coast sponsored or at least it looked like that, the Event space and probably some gaming tournaments. I did not find that intrusive as fandom is a customer of theirs and they did not seem to be intrusive at all, just a sign or two. No one was forcibly selling their products or doing anything that went against the fan ran nature of the con. This is OK sponsorship. I would not have been offended by Raytheon but I worked for the military my entire career and see them as a defense contractor and not some evil force.
Lord, I wrote about my fears of this in the wake of the Raytheon mess at Discon. I feel like Cassandra.
Something I’ve always wondered. What percentage of SFF fans (not just conventioneers or fan club members) worldwide earn their daily bread working within the military-industrial complex? Not just at Boeing, Raytheon, ArianSpace, Leonardo, and their like around the world, but their sub-contractors, and sub-sub-contractors? My guess (I’d love to see a rigorous study of this) is that it was a pretty high % from WWI through the end of the Cold War. Who knows what the percentage is now?
Does it matter? Perhaps it does when you consider how SFF fandom as a whole makes the money they use to buy books, view movies and attend conventions. My point? If it is OK to accept money from these fans, is it also OK to accept money from their employers directly? If their employers match donations to non-profits, should conventions accept those matched donations?
As conventions become more expensive to mount, and organizers look for creative ways to offset those costs and try to keep membership prices accessible, this issue will not go away.
For those who don’t remember, DIsney was a SIGNIFICANT sponsor of LA Con II way back 40 years ago, and even had a very large, walk through “Return to Oz” promotion area that had to be at least 2,000 square feet.
Praise Bruce
Sponsorships aren’t new, but they are increasing essential to the operation of the types of cons folks under 60 (who don’t have Worldcon relationships going back decades) might, possibly, want to attend.
Money coming from private individuals and invested by corporations is not the same thing.
Chalk me up as one who would stop going to WorldCon if it became an entertainment business financed through sponsorships. If I wanted that kind of thing I’d go to DragonCon.
It may well be that WorldCon, and fandom in general, will die because it is simply unaffordable for the demographic it once served. I don’t know about you, but I see more and more people drastically impoverished who can’t afford to go to a WorldCon, sometimes even a national con. Not to mention that the bottom has basically fallen out of the writing business. When I went to Clarion in 2003 it was already hard to make a living writing, but it was possible, if you were lucky and persistent. That is simply not true any more.
Has anybody seen the dealers hall these days? There is more money in yarn than in books – and I love yarn, don’t get me wrong.
So is this what we want? Writers who do it for passion in the free time Raytheonrof Amazon or Hydra for that matter leave them at the end of the eight hours plus three hours of commute a day? And then go to an event paid for by your corporate masters, where instead of winners thanking their mom and their spouses they stop to read a scripted ad for VPN North or Better Help?
No thank you. It was fun while it lasted, but I am out if that’s what it comes down to.
We are people, not extensions of our employer. The money that we spend on Worldcon is coming from us, not Spacely Space Sprockets Incorporated.
Let’s do a postmortem without mentioning any of the bad stuff. (Yes, there were issues to discuss even before the vote irregularities came out.) This is a terrible approach to “what we learned”.
Coxen and Yalow deliberately avoiding questions about transparency is actually a commitment to non-transparency.
@Jon:
I don’t use Facebook, so a direct link would be helpful, if links even get through the paywall.
I suppose that’s a way to keep the panel from running over the time allotted. Surprised they filled the hour.
Pingback: Ersatz Culture Guest Post: Additional Comments on the Smofcon “What Can We Learn From Chengdu” Panel - File 770
Chengdu and every other Worldcon should report their in-kind contributions. We should know every sponsor and what they provided, along with an estimated value of their contribution if one can be determined. The fact that Chengdu was given a lot of things other than cash does not negate the obligation to report the con’s complete financial picture.
Any Worldcon set up as a non-profit in the U.S. knows that in-kind contributions are reported because they have to be reported on their Form 990.
When I start a blog about SF convention financial forensics I’m going to call it File 990.
Responding to Danjite’s comment above:
I don’t know where Danjite gets his information. It’s completely incorrect.
Disney was not a sponsor of L.A.con II in 1984. They provided no money, goods, or services to the convention. Just as, for example, Lucasfilm set up exhibits on Star Wars at the 1976 Worldcon and The Empire Strikes Back at the 1979 Worldcon, Disney set up a 1,000 sq. ft. exhibit (not “at least 2,000 sq. ft.”) on Return to Oz. None of those exhibits cost any of the conventions any money nor did they receive any money from the studios. The studios got publicity for the upcoming films. The fans got cool exhibits to look at. They were not sponsorships by any normal definition. No money changed hands nor were any costs incurred. No more than any or fan group that sets up an exhibit is a “sponsor”.
I say this having been the co-chair of L.A.con II and the one who provided the Return to Oz exhibit.
Were the exhibits open to the general public, or just WorldCon members?
I edited this post to properly reflect that Ersatz Culture played an important role in it being reported: “In late January, John S of Ersatz Culture called attention to the Smofcon panel as part of his ongoing reporting about problems with Chengdu.”
I’ve been contemplating why I didn’t do that originally, when I like to see the people who write news on places like File 770 get acknowledged for their efforts. I think it is because I noped out of Chengdu in early 2023, even the Hugos. After that I avoided a lot of stories about the ongoing problems. I was just looking forward to the day after it ended, thinking we’d be able to turn the page completely and focus on Glasgow.
Not so much.
Facebook users control who sees their posts by marking them as either “Public,” meaning “visible to the entire world” or “Friends-only,” which works as the label on the tin describes.
So any link to a Public Facebook post works, but a link to a “Friends-only” post can’t be seen except on Facebook by Friends of the poster.
They are public Facebook posts. Here are direct links to the two posts from Francesca Myman I believe Jon Meltzer was referring to: First post and second post.
She has since written a third post which may also be of interest.
Myman – as with many others – seems to be oblivious to the fact that everything on the SFW list is stuff they published or will publish, or employees of theirs. But you don’t have to just take my word for it.
NB: that’s obviously still not against the Hugo rules, and absolutely not grounds for rejecting those ballots. But too many people seem to be under this misapprehension that it was a “pure” recommendation list without any (unstated) vested interest in promoting those works/people. Although whether that is much worse than, for example, Tordotcom having “an award focused buzz campaign” for a Becky Chambers novella is debatable IMHO.
Bear in mind that the some of the English and Dutch works on that list still haven’t been published in Chinese yet. One of the authors on that list was as bemused as I was.
Why the heck does that NetGalley listing for the Becky Chambers novella show the “Marketing Plan”?