1) The waste that may occur from (a) the cost of a venue that is unnecessarily large, and (b) left-over food and drink. Short of encouraging us all to drink more, the only way to avoid this for certain is to have a charge that acts as an incentive to turn up. But see issue 2.

2) Access to this forum. Some people can pay, some can’t or not easily. Charging will reduce access to this forum for some, and therefore it depends on the underlying philosophy of these forums. The economists are undoubtedly correct that we value what we must pay for (though we can, of course, value things for which we have not paid). But in a world of unequal access to resources, not all can pay, or more correctly, the cost to them of the nominal charge is disproportionally greater than it is for me. And then there are the arguments from critical theorists on the commodification of human activity…

3) Finally, any solution needs to be administratively straightforward, given Ferne’s time constraints.

Conclusion?

Administrative certainty and environmental bottom-lines require people to pay for these fora. This will add to the administrative cost of course.

Access and participation require a very low or no charge (again, assuming the costs can be met elsewhere).

Given these choices, I’d opt for the ‘no charge’, that is greater participation accompanied by a little increased uncertainty, and perhaps wastage. Eco-fascist states aside, its never going to be a perfect world!

A useful mitigation strategy may be to explain the costs on non-attendance. I was surprised by the numbers above (250 registered, 80 turned up!). That information alone would make me much more aware of my responsibility to turn up or advise otherwise. At least we are dealing with a part or the population whose ethical concerns are already reasonably well developed; why otherwise would they turn up when there is so much TV to watch!!

I turn up now both because I am interested to learn about new things in sustainability, and because the event is free.
I will turn up usually regardless of whether I think I might enjoy the topics on offer or not, because the event is free.
In any case, I learn something new every time, and am usually glad I attended.

Perhaps with the RSVP’s there should be different tick boxes provided to respond with, to enable event organisers to gauge the degree to which people intend to attend, perhaps something like: (3) I hope to attend if I am not busy, (2) I will probably attend this event, (1) I will definitely attend this event. Then, event organisers might be able to then cater for just the number 1’s, and if more people turn up, then so be it (the drinks finish early!).

I’m not so concerned with covering costs by charging for the events but am more aware of the commitment to attend. I currently do (or at least try time-permitting) send out reminder emails a week before the event and I’ll certainly strive to do this in the future. As for the charge being too high for some, maybe there is some way to still encourage these people to attend for free - but on what grounds exactly? As these events are one small part of my position at VEIL its very hard to juggle personal details for the number of people who RSVP (250 people RSVPed to the last event and only 80 showed up!) so time constraints need to be considered. Any thoughts?….

Thanks again,
Ferne

Have a great festive season

Tim

I have been involved in organising a number of free events and although we don’t want/need to charge we are thinking of introducing a nominal fee to discourage the last minute pull out and to avoid wastage of resources (ie. food, materials).

Perhaps if you charged a fee you could make it refundable for those who turn up??

Reminder emails to those who have rsvped about 1-2 weeks before is also effective because then you are getting cancellations a little earlier and hopefully have some time to make some adjustments to the event.

Cheers
Olivia