Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chapter News and Views' started by Robert Ling, Jun 19, 2012.
I wasn't able to attend this year and was wondering how it went ?
The National was fantastic fun! Here are just a few photos to give you an idea.
Thanks for posting, Robert. Always good to see some of the mart treasures. Looks like John Hubby in the background of one of your pictures.
I'm sorry I had to miss it
So it was, in photo 11!! My wife Beth and I were gawking at the incredible display of clocks brought by Jim Cipra, some of which are shown in photo 10.
It was a great show, well attended and plenty of action. Most of the table holders I spoke with did well.
Sure would like to see everybody at the 2013 National in Canton, OH. That's the 70th anniversary of the founding of NAWCC and it's going to be a humdinger!! I understand they had already sold more than 200 tables prior to setting up their booth in Pasadena, don't know how many sold there but someone seeing this that is in the know, sure would like to see the number.
Actually, it's DAYTON, Ohio, quite a ways from Canton.
Oops!! Sorry about that, no idea why Canton came to mind. Any info on table sales?
Total sales to date from regionals and Pasadena:
225 registrations plus two comps;
261 regular tables;
53 end caps;
6 OT & Fellows lunches;
8 receptions; and
2 electrical hookups.
The unofficial and still incomplete count of attendance at the 2012 National In Pasadena, CA, shows 1,100+ attendees over and above the count of table holders. That is approximately 400 attendees for every table holder! As John Hubby mentioned on another thread, the usual count is about 300 attendees per table holder.
The Pasadena show was huge!
Somehow I was given the wrong ratio. I believe the usual determination for a successful show is 3 times as many attendees as table holders. The tentative ratio for the Pasadena National is approaching 6 times as many attendees as table holders.
I wish it had been 400 per table holder, but that would mean we would have had 80,000 attendees and I know it wasn't that crowded!
John Hubby, can you help me here with the desired ratio?
As we get final counts, I will give the correct ratio. My apologies to all for my blunder.
Robert, you are off by a factor of 100.
The "best ever" national/regional attendance figures a few years back ran to about 5 buyers per table holder, reasonably good is 3 to 1 and 4 to 1 is where some of our better shows have come in recently.
Basically the numbers are easily calculated.
1) Total attendance is ALL paid entries regardless of category, including members of the public on the public day.
2) "Table holders" are the number of attendees who are given a name badge that allows mart entry privileges during setup and any other time the mart isn't open to the general attendee. This includes the primary table holders plus all family/friends assigned the same table numbers aa the primary holder.
3) Buyers = Item 1) - Item 2).
4) Buyers per table holder = Item 3 / Item 2
Total attendance = 1500
Table holders = 300
Buyers = 1500 - 300 = 1200
Buyers per table holder = 1200 / 300 = 4 to 1
Thank you, John. My last posting got it correct. Using the preliminary numbers, the ratio is 5.5 to 1. That is expected to grow as the counting continues, thus my comment "is approaching 6 times".
I haven't been to a big mart for a long time. I thought it was well attended. A few people I talked to, and ones who had more attendance experience than I had, thought it would be more crowded. The room was so huge, it was hard to get a feel for the crowd.
Attendance was excellent, and the room was huge. It made the crowd look more sparse than it was, but it made perusing much easier and more fun.
It made security easier, too, for both the table holders and the staff.
Not to worry. The recent Mart (or was it the Bulletin), put it in Dayton, CA.
BTW, John, you look much younger than your pictures. Do you have one hanging on the wall of a sealed room somewhere?
Maybe that's why my Mom told me just before she passed away that my real middle name was Dorian . . .