michael.wieher at gmail.com
Sun Mar 16 15:40:07 CET 2008
2008/3/16, Aaron <aaron.murray at gmail.com>:
> > In my opinion, open spaces should have had greater status and billing,
> > with eyes-forward talks and vendor sessions offered only as possible
> > alternatives. Especially, vendor sessions should not be presented as
> > "keynotes" during plenary sessions. I think it took a little while
> > for people to catch on to the idea that they could have control of
> > their own experience through the open spaces and that the main
> > offerings were not the only option.
> This is an excellent suggestion and observation. Sold sponsorships
> are fine as long as they are billed as such. Labels on the vendor
> speeches indicated they were sold as ad space would be great, as well
> as more strongly emphasizing the ad hoc discussion spaces.
But vendors often don't label themselves as vendors. And often, the
researcher or individual in question, who has something worth saying, does
have a professional job of sorts, which might be related to his or her work
or speech. I've heard people give very long, detailed talks about
interesting topics, that did have a spin on them, but contained worthwhile
information also. Now, is that to be billed as a "vendor" (and ignored) or
Further, no vendor who is trying to sell a product will allow themselves to
be marked in an obvious way as advertising, knowing that they'll be
ignored. At least, they certainly won't pay for the time/space to any real
degree, knowing they'll be walking in under a cloud like that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list