Caveat Lector

I’ve been watching the tempest Jenny started, and I get a sense that a lot of people are missing the point.

The point is not that all speakers have to be comped. The point is that all speakers should be treated fairly. Jenny’s right that it’s bizarrely unfair that non-members get comped and members don’t. That’s a speech act, folks; it’s got locutionary force to spare. I can’t blame Jenny et alia for calling the perlocution as they see it; it sure reads to me like “we value non-members more than members as speakers.”

So don’t comp anybody. That would be fair. Or offer all speakers the same (percentage or dollar) discount to the conference, off whatever their normal registration fee would be. That leaves the membership incentive intact, while still providing all speakers a nice perk. Or—here’s a fun option!—offer free or discounted memberships as speaker gimmes. Members can extend their memberships; non-members become members (and, one hopes, future revenue sources).

I’m not a marketing or conference-finance expert. Doubtless someone who is could come up with even more clever and innovative ideas. Remember the point, however. The point is fairness to all speakers regardless of membership status in the organization. The point is not screwing your own members over!

That said, a colleague at MPOW wants to work with me on a presentation for the next ACRL… and I think I’m going to turn her down. Since I’m no longer an ALA member, I could theoretically get comped—but the idea is pretty detestable, actually. We all know I’m not fond of ALA. Why should an ALA conference get my presentation labor? I’d rather prepare something for the next code4lib gathering.