AGDQ2016 Budget Overview

2015-10-24 07:29:22 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

It's that time of year, we've got most of our ducks in a row now and can go over what we're looking at for the upcoming AGDQ. We've been working on this event for a while now!

AGDQ 2016 Budget Rundown

Rather than get super wordy, going to keep it short and simple:

Anything not used in the PCF budget is money that PCF keeps.

PCF Expenses:

Staff: $167,400 for 19 people.
Staff budget includes flights/travel, does not pay for hotel or badges.
Server Compensation: $500
Prize Shipping: $2500
Prize Funding Budget: $1000 (rarely used)
Movers/truck rental/World9 equipment haul from Wisconsin: $9,000 max
Hilton Conference Space: $39,000 (Includes internet expenses)
Contingency: $5000
Liability Event Insurance Estimate: $500

GDQ Expenses:
Entertainment Budget (soon-to-be-announced/pinball/etc): $10,000
Entertainment includes third-party soon-to-be-announced staff and their hotel/travel, etc.
World9/PowerUp Audio Hotel and travel: ~$3000
Equipment Budget: $10,000 or less
Contingency: $5000
Security: $1000

Misc Info:
Sponsorship funds are sent directly to the charity from the sponsor, without our involvement.
We do not receive kickbacks from sponsorship arrangements.
GDQ does receive sponsorship prizes for giveaways, or borrowing equipment (Gamespot’s camera arrangement for AGDQ2014 for instance) for the stream.

Subscriber revenue during the month(s) of the event goes to the charity (January, for AGDQ).
Twitch Subscription money during non-marathon months as well as ad revenue goes to GDQ and covers expenses (servers, lawyer, etc).

Attendee revenue is used as a buffer for expenses, damages, cancellations (hotel contracts are very expensive to break), as well as attendee entertainment, equipment, taxes, accountant, and monthly expenses if any.

Note that most line items are estimates, and are almost always lower, especially charity payout.

We cannot be specific about particular sponsorship, staff or other contractual agreements.

Thread title:

It's that time of year, we've got most of our ducks in a row now and can go over what we're looking at for the upcoming AGDQ. We've been working on this event for a while now!

[b]AGDQ 2016 Budget Rundown[/b]

Rather than get super wordy, going to keep it short and simple:

Anything not used in the PCF budget is money that PCF keeps.

[b]PCF Expenses:
[/b]
Staff: $167,400 for 19 people.
Staff budget includes flights/travel, does not pay for hotel or badges.
Server Compensation: $500
Prize Shipping: $2500
Prize Funding Budget: $1000 (rarely used)
Movers/truck rental/World9 equipment haul from Wisconsin: $9,000 max
Hilton Conference Space: $39,000 (Includes internet expenses)
Contingency: $5000
Liability Event Insurance Estimate: $500

[b]GDQ Expenses:[/b]
Entertainment Budget (soon-to-be-announced/pinball/etc): $10,000
Entertainment includes third-party soon-to-be-announced staff and their hotel/travel, etc.
World9/PowerUp Audio Hotel and travel: ~$3000
Equipment Budget: $10,000 or less
Contingency: $5000
Security: $1000

[b]Misc Info:[/b]
Sponsorship funds are sent directly to the charity from the sponsor, without our involvement.
We do not receive kickbacks from sponsorship arrangements. 
GDQ does receive sponsorship prizes for giveaways, or borrowing equipment (Gamespot’s camera arrangement for AGDQ2014 for instance) for the stream.

Subscriber revenue during the month(s) of the event goes to the charity (January, for AGDQ). 
Twitch Subscription money during non-marathon months as well as ad revenue  goes to GDQ and covers expenses (servers, lawyer, etc).

Attendee revenue is used as a buffer for expenses, damages, cancellations (hotel contracts are very expensive to break), as well as attendee entertainment, equipment, taxes, accountant, and monthly expenses if any.

Note that most line items are estimates, and are almost always lower, especially charity payout.

We cannot be specific about particular sponsorship, staff or other contractual agreements.

jymotion

2015-11-21 10:57:56 am

Quote from Cool Matty:

PCF Expenses: Staff: $167,400 for 19 people.

I'm gonna be blunt and say it's shameful you guys are asking/accepting this much money from a charity, given how incompetently the event has been planned.

TrUShade

2015-11-21 05:06:32 pm

The TrUest of Shades

Quote from Cool Matty:

World9/PowerUp Audio Hotel and travel: ~$3000

Isn't PowerUp Audio not coming anymore?

Cool Matty

2015-11-21 05:08:17 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from TrUShade:

Quote from Cool Matty:

World9/PowerUp Audio Hotel and travel: ~$3000

Isn't PowerUp Audio not coming anymore?

Correct. This was posted prior to them not being able to get time off.

TrUShade

2015-11-21 05:09:22 pm

The TrUest of Shades

oh oops my fault, didn't look at the date.

LLCoolDave

2015-11-25 07:18:30 am

Quote from Cool Matty:

Staff: $167,400 for 19 people.
Staff budget includes flights/travel, does not pay for hotel or badges.

Is there any chance we can get a more detailed breakdown of this figure? At $25/h this comes out to just shy of 6700 man hours of staff time paid for by PCF. That's just over two months of full time work by a staff of 19. With that much time compensated, surely one of the 19 people should be able to find an hour or two to disclose how this time budget is actually assigned and consumed. Frankly, I (and many others), have trouble seeing 6700 hours of quality work being invested into AGDQ.

I'm one of the first to say that charity work should be compensated for fairly if desired, and I've not had any issues with the principle direction of the arrangements with PCF from the start. However, the compensation should be adequate and not only measured from a purely financial, but also moral point of view. While AGDQ, as it stands with this budget, is still a good ROI for them I can't help but feel that the deal is rather lopsided.

One of the primary selling points of PCF as a charity to support at AGDQ, at least to me, has been that they promise and support projects that have a relatively strong impact at a fairly low budget for the field. (Whether or not that is actually true is not my point here.) Making a medium sized donation to PCF as an individual, at least to me, felt like it could actually have an impact, because according to their agenda, it actually would. Especially in these circumstances, it seems that the money spent on running charity events for them should be scrutinized for efficiency, because the difference could very well be the budget for another full research grant or awareness campaign for them.

It seems to me, then, that it would be in the best interest for the charity, and the public, to understand how these funds, especially the staff budget, are actually being used to improve the event itself and return for PCF. Finding and eliminating inefficiencies in the budgeting would be beneficial to the charity as it frees funds for other fundraising events or actual charitable projects. Of course, this assumes that the benefit of the charity is actually a main point of focus.

Out of curiosity, I asked Edenal about a budget estimation for ESA2015, an event which has at this point grown to be at least comparable in scope to AGDQ as far as technical set up and scheduling is concerned. He stated that he thinks he could provide fair compensation for staff as well as the rest of the expenses for about 30,000€. Of course, as far as I understand, the rent for ESA is heavily subsidized, so I'm willing to exclude that from either budget for the time being.

Quote from Edenal:

Fredrik Lidholt: 30 000€ would cover everything easy
Fair financial compensation for the staff.
Rent, equipment, storage

Of course, that's just a quick estimate, but it still matches my suspicion that 6700 hours of staff time on AGDQ is hard to justify without a proper assessment of how it is being used to improve the event either for the charity, the attendees or the viewers at home.

Frankly, at this point it seems to me that the majority of the staff budget is not actually spent on tangible work put into the event, but rather as a lease on the GDQ brand name to ensure further and future cooperation with PCF. Unless you can provide a reasonable and believable justification and breakdown of the staff budget, this is unfortunately the only logical conclusion I can take from this figure, and it's certainly one I find to be, at the very least, morally questionable.

Back at AGDQ2012 and AGDQ2013 I had discussions with Mike Uyama about the focus of the event being split between the charity, the attendees on site and the viewers at home, leaving a conflicting overarching structure and execution, and the implications this might have on the way future events should be run. Ironically, at this point the issue seems to have been resolved, in that the focus now no longer lies with any of these three groups.

[quote="Cool Matty"]
Staff: $167,400 for 19 people.
Staff budget includes flights/travel, does not pay for hotel or badges.
[/quote]

Is there any chance we can get a more detailed breakdown of this figure? At $25/h this comes out to just shy of 6700 man hours of staff time paid for by PCF. That's just over two months of full time work by a staff of 19. With that much time compensated, surely one of the 19 people should be able to find an hour or two to disclose how this time budget is actually assigned and consumed. Frankly, I (and many others), have trouble seeing 6700 hours of quality work being invested into AGDQ.

I'm one of the first to say that charity work should be compensated for fairly if desired, and I've not had any issues with the principle direction of the arrangements with PCF from the start. However, the compensation should be adequate and not only measured from a purely financial, but also moral point of view. While AGDQ, as it stands with this budget, is still a good ROI for them I can't help but feel that the deal is rather lopsided.

One of the primary selling points of PCF as a charity to support at AGDQ, at least to me, has been that they promise and support projects that have a relatively strong impact at a fairly low budget for the field. (Whether or not that is actually true is not my point here.) Making a medium sized donation to PCF as an individual, at least to me, felt like it could actually have an impact, because according to their agenda, it actually would. Especially in these circumstances, it seems that the money spent on running charity events for them should be scrutinized for efficiency, because the difference could very well be the budget for another full research grant or awareness campaign for them.

It seems to me, then, that it would be in the best interest for the charity, and the public, to understand how these funds, especially the staff budget, are actually being used to improve the event itself and return for PCF. Finding and eliminating inefficiencies in the budgeting would be beneficial to the charity as it frees funds for other fundraising events or actual charitable projects. Of course, this assumes that the benefit of the charity is actually a main point of focus.

Out of curiosity, I asked Edenal about a budget estimation for ESA2015, an event which has at this point grown to be at least comparable in scope to AGDQ as far as technical set up and scheduling is concerned. He stated that he thinks he could provide fair compensation for staff as well as the rest of the expenses for about 30,000€. Of course, as far as I understand, the rent for ESA is heavily subsidized, so I'm willing to exclude that from either budget for the time being.

[Quote="Edenal"]Fredrik Lidholt: 30 000€ would cover everything easy
Fair financial compensation for the staff.
Rent, equipment, storage[/Quote]

Of course, that's just a quick estimate, but it still matches my suspicion that 6700 hours of staff time on AGDQ is hard to justify without a proper assessment of how it is being used to improve the event either for the charity, the attendees or the viewers at home.

Frankly, at this point it seems to me that the majority of the staff budget is not actually spent on tangible work put into the event, but rather as a lease on the GDQ brand name to ensure further and future cooperation with PCF. Unless you can provide a reasonable and believable justification and breakdown of the staff budget, this is unfortunately the only logical conclusion I can take from this figure, and it's certainly one I find to be, at the very least, morally questionable.

Back at AGDQ2012 and AGDQ2013 I had discussions with Mike Uyama about the focus of the event being split between the charity, the attendees on site and the viewers at home, leaving a conflicting overarching structure and execution, and the implications this might have on the way future events should be run. Ironically, at this point the issue seems to have been resolved, in that the focus now no longer lies with any of these three groups.

zewing

2015-11-27 02:45:42 pm

just( •_•)>⌐■-■ ..... (⌐■_■)wing it

I think everyone would like a response to LLCoolDave, who was a former Administrater on this site and does not deserve this ignorance against him.

dwangoAC

2015-11-28 11:13:17 am

Keeper of TASBot

Quote from zewing:

I think everyone would like a response to LLCoolDave, who was a former Administrater on this site and does not deserve this ignorance against him.

Take note that it's a holiday weekend in the US where most staff is located so I would anticipate there will be a delay in any staff response. I think it's still a bit too early to jump to the conclusion that there is a plot to keep a former administrator in the dark. Smiley

I am not staff, but I seem to recall reading at some point that just because hours are budgeted ahead of time doesn't mean that they are paid out, i.e. just because that's the upper end of the budget allocated doesn't mean it is being 100% consumed. This is guessing on my part but if the budget is based on hours consumed and (for various reasons) some staff members are not contributing as much to AGDQ 2016 it presumably means the staff budget will not be 100% utilized. I would appreciate some clarification on this as well, once staff can get some time to get to this thread.

[quote="zewing"]I think everyone would like a response to LLCoolDave, who was a former Administrater on this site and does not deserve this ignorance against him.[/quote]Take note that it's a holiday weekend in the US where most staff is located so I would anticipate there will be a delay in any staff response.  I think it's still a bit too early to jump to the conclusion that there is a plot to keep a former administrator in the dark. :)

I am not staff, but I seem to recall reading at some point that just because hours are budgeted ahead of time doesn't mean that they are paid out, i.e. just because that's the upper end of the budget allocated doesn't mean it is being 100% consumed.  This is guessing on my part but if the budget is based on hours consumed and (for various reasons) some staff members are not contributing as much to AGDQ 2016 it presumably means the staff budget will not be 100% utilized.  I would appreciate some clarification on this as well, once staff can get some time to get to this thread.

LLCoolDave

2015-11-28 03:32:17 pm

First of all, I did in fact get contact by Cool Matty within a few hours of making the post, and we did have an extended discussion on some of the issues I, and others, have brought up. I've had time to think about the situation some more since then and I guess it's time to write a follow up post now.

I'm still disappointed that the discussion is happening in private, because it makes it very hard for people not involved to build an informed conclusion on a topic that's been up for debate for the third consecutive year now. From what I gather, the main reason given for not having a more open debate about the specifics is that any information presented by Games Done Quick will likely be misquoted, misjudged and misrepresented by the people vehemently opposed to the business side of GDQs. This is, I think, a reasonably valid point, in that I also believe that any more detailed information will be food for the people that are principally opposed to the event being entirely volunteer based, regardless of the actual content. The issue I have with the argument is that remaining silent is just as much food to that crowd, while the rest of us that are willing to have a meaningful discussion are just left in the dark.

To this second crowd, ongoing silence is a growing reason to be suspicious, because at some point, repeatedly avoiding a conversation just makes it more and more likely that you have something you're trying to hide. These days, the options for charitable donations are very wide, so showing an interest in the appropriate use of the funds we are donating and the associated events we are supporting and promoting is very natural to me. Losing trust in the GDQ organizers over this perceived shadiness is something I want to try to avoid, as it's only going to hurt the charities and speedrunning community in the long run.

As I said before, I'm all for adequate compensation for charity workers, but I guess with a sum on the order of $163,400 it had become hard for an outsider to understand what those funds are invested in and decide if that use is justified. In my discussion with Matt I've come to understand better what roles and activities are being covered by the staff budget for AGDQ. I don't think it is appropriate for me to disclose any details that I've come to know, as they may concern financial details of third parties that have not been involved in the discussion. If anything, I'd want any of these details, if they are to be involved in the discussion, to be disclosed by the people involved instead of by me as an outsider that may or may not be pushing a specific agenda.

Regardless, there are still a few topics I think are worth bringing up (again) at this point, which I hope help putting things into better context:

- As dwangoAC pointed out, the staff budget concerns money set aside for work put in by GDQ for running the event, it's not a flat sum guaranteed to be paid. AGDQ2015 did come in under budget by a considerable amount, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened again this year. This still means that the $163k have been planned for and negotiated in the contracts for AGDQ2016, even if the full budget does not end up being spent.

- Being contracted work, the GDQ staff do not get to enjoy some of the benefits that usually come with proper employment, such as better/cheaper health insurance plans and 401k matching, which naturally means that a fair and adequate compensation corresponds to a comparatively higher gross hourly rate. Being from Germany, I do not have enough experience in these matters to be able to appropriately judge these differences.

- From what I gathered, most of the work done in preparation for (and at the event by these people) that is not explicitly volunteered is being compensated. This includes dealing with sponsors, instructing, organizing and vetting the volunteers at the event (as they will be representing the charity), development work for the stream layouts, tracker and database (which I'm told is still having considerable work done to it) and the games committee. I do not know any proper details of the work and time involved in these activities. If anything, this at least resolves the issue of figuring out who's contributions are worth being compensated for as an essential aspect of the event, if all the work considered important for the success of the event is, in theory, being contracted. This certainly puts the sum and size of the staff into better perspective.

- The arrangements with MSF for SGDQ are, in general terms, comparable to the ones with PCF for AGDQ.

While I'd love to have a more open discussion on some of these topics, I think it is up to the GDQ Staff to initiate the discourse, which I still hope is going to happen in the future.

To close on my personal thoughts and opinions on the matter, I'm still uncertain if the amount of background work credited for AGDQ is worthwhile and appropriate. I don't know if this is the case because a lot of the work might just be fundamentally hard to notice as a mere viewer/attendee or if the work simply does not lead to a very noticeable improvement in quality of the event. Without having a better idea of where the time and money is being spent I simply cannot judge the quality of work being done. What feels a bit odd to me is that while most of the preparation work is being done as contracted charity work, a large part of the manpower behind running the actual event is on an entirely voluntary basis, including donation tracking, all of the hosting, a decent amount of the people manning the tech station and obviously the runners themselves. It seems a bit odd that the time vetting the runners and hosts is considered "valuable", but the time actually spend running the games and sitting behind the mic to get people to actually tune into the stream is not, but I can't propose any good solution to this perceived mismatch. If anything, compensating the runners would probably turn game submissions into more of a shit show than it already is.

I don't believe there's anything overtly shady or a gross misconduct going on, although I do still feel a bit uneasy in the way things are managed by PCF and GDQ given the public information on the topic. However, being unable to justify this feeling one way or the other based on facts is what makes the topic stick out to me more than it probably should.

First of all, I did in fact get contact by Cool Matty within a few hours of making the post, and we did have an extended discussion on some of the issues I, and others, have brought up. I've had time to think about the situation some more since then and I guess it's time to write a follow up post now.

I'm still disappointed that the discussion is happening in private, because it makes it very hard for people not involved to build an informed conclusion on a topic that's been up for debate for the third consecutive year now. From what I gather, the main reason given for not having a more open debate about the specifics is that any information presented by Games Done Quick will likely be misquoted, misjudged and misrepresented by the people vehemently opposed to the business side of GDQs. This is, I think, a reasonably valid point, in that I also believe that any more detailed information will be food for the people that are principally opposed to the event being entirely volunteer based, regardless of the actual content. The issue I have with the argument is that remaining silent is just as much food to that crowd, while the rest of us that are willing to have a meaningful discussion are just left in the dark.

To this second crowd, ongoing silence is a growing reason to be suspicious, because at some point, repeatedly avoiding a conversation just makes it more and more likely that you have something you're trying to hide. These days, the options for charitable donations are very wide, so showing an interest in the appropriate use of the funds we are donating and the associated events we are supporting and promoting is very natural to me. Losing trust in the GDQ organizers over this perceived shadiness is something I want to try to avoid, as it's only going to hurt the charities and speedrunning community in the long run.

As I said before, I'm all for adequate compensation for charity workers, but I guess with a sum on the order of $163,400 it had become hard for an outsider to understand what those funds are invested in and decide if that use is justified. In my discussion with Matt I've come to understand better what roles and activities are being covered by the staff budget for AGDQ. I don't think it is appropriate for me to disclose any details that I've come to know, as they may concern financial details of third parties that have not been involved in the discussion. If anything, I'd want any of these details, if they are to be involved in the discussion, to be disclosed by the people involved instead of by me as an outsider that may or may not be pushing a specific agenda.

Regardless, there are still a few topics I think are worth bringing up (again) at this point, which I hope help putting things into better context:

- As dwangoAC pointed out, the staff budget concerns money set aside for work put in by GDQ for running the event, it's not a flat sum guaranteed to be paid. AGDQ2015 did come in under budget by a considerable amount, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened again this year. This still means that the $163k have been planned for and negotiated in the contracts for AGDQ2016, even if the full budget does not end up being spent.

- Being contracted work, the GDQ staff do not get to enjoy some of the benefits that usually come with proper employment, such as better/cheaper health insurance plans and 401k matching, which naturally means that a fair and adequate compensation corresponds to a comparatively higher gross hourly rate. Being from Germany, I do not have enough experience in these matters to be able to appropriately judge these differences.

- From what I gathered, most of the work done in preparation for (and at the event by these people) that is not explicitly volunteered is being compensated. This includes dealing with sponsors, instructing, organizing and vetting the volunteers at the event (as they will be representing the charity), development work for the stream layouts, tracker and database (which I'm told is still having considerable work done to it) and the games committee. I do not know any proper details of the work and time involved in these activities. If anything, this at least resolves the issue of figuring out who's contributions are worth being compensated for as an essential aspect of the event, if all the work considered important for the success of the event is, in theory, being contracted. This certainly puts the sum and size of the staff into better perspective.

- The arrangements with MSF for SGDQ are, in general terms, comparable to the ones with PCF for AGDQ.

While I'd love to have a more open discussion on some of these topics, I think it is up to the GDQ Staff to initiate the discourse, which I still hope is going to happen in the future.

To close on my personal thoughts and opinions on the matter, I'm still uncertain if the amount of background work credited for AGDQ is worthwhile and appropriate. I don't know if this is the case because a lot of the work might just be fundamentally hard to notice as a mere viewer/attendee or if the work simply does not lead to a very noticeable improvement in quality of the event. Without having a better idea of where the time and money is being spent I simply cannot judge the quality of work being done. What feels a bit odd to me is that while most of the preparation work is being done as contracted charity work, a large part of the manpower behind running the actual event is on an entirely voluntary basis, including donation tracking, all of the hosting, a decent amount of the people manning the tech station and obviously the runners themselves. It seems a bit odd that the time vetting the runners and hosts is considered "valuable", but the time actually spend running the games and sitting behind the mic to get people to actually tune into the stream is not, but I can't propose any good solution to this perceived mismatch. If anything, compensating the runners would probably turn game submissions into more of a shit show than it already is.

I don't believe there's anything overtly shady or a gross misconduct going on, although I do still feel a bit uneasy in the way things are managed by PCF and GDQ given the public information on the topic. However, being unable to justify this feeling one way or the other based on facts is what makes the topic stick out to me more than it probably should.

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2015-11-29 10:27:19 am

2015-11-28 04:05:25 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

I've been waiting for Dave to write his followup before I posted.

1. Work hours are not divided equally, that would make little sense. There's people who work all year, some who work longer than 2 months, some that work off/on the entire year (programmers for example), etc.
2. Some people assume that if it's on the budget, that money is spent. That's not how it works. It sets maximums. If staff works less hours, then it's not all paid out. If equipment is under $10k, then we don't spend $10k.
3. Comparisons drawn to ESA are going to be very, very inaccurate. They don't have nearly the amount of work required to plan their events. due to size, purpose, etc.
4. ESA and other events (RPG:LB, Tip of the Hats, etc) benefit, for free, from some of the work our staff is paid for (the tracker and its programmers being most of it), and some have also made use of our servers at no cost to them. We give back to the community in this way.
5. This also includes things like our new stream layout system, which is very complex. RPG Limit Break was able to use that open sourced system for their stream this year.
6. This was brought up elsewhere: this is a budget that is predicting the future. For instance, with equipment, there would be no way to give an exact breakdown of purchases when the purchases haven't been made. We've only just started, taking advantage of the sales going on now.

To give a brief overview of the work our staff does:

Planner/everything else: Right now, that's me, minus run-related stuff. Once Mike's back in action, it's his job. This means hunting down hotels, nailing down sponsorship needs after we're closing a deal with them, a handful of various contracts (including big hotel contract and charity contract), budget, etc.
Operations/management: my normal job. Overseeing all the technical parts of the event, researching equipment, website work outside of the tracker, supervising the staff and getting answers for their questions, working with hotels on layout and IT, server maintenance, hardware modding/assembly, etc.
Sponsorships/social media/press: Self explanatory. Be working all year long to do this, particularly since sponsorship negotiations can take months in their own right.
Volunteer Coordination: Total of 3 people. They do the volunteer scheduling (and dealing with runner schedule conflicts), host interviews, and doing as much as they can to vet each volunteer. Also responsible for running the registration desk, shirts, freebies, etc.
Safety group: Total of 3 people, making sure people keep the place clean, keeping it safe, and enforcing hotel + event policies.
Tech coordinator: The guy in charge of making sure tech runs smoothly. Does a ton of work prior to the event as well as at the event, including setup/teardown. Has also done an amazing job of documenting our setup and optimizing it over time.
The committee: Varies, but is currently 4 not counting Mike.
Tracker Programmers: 2 paid staff, who work on it off/on the entire year, as well as debug during the event.
Layout Designers: a programmer and a graphics guy, this team also works for Tip of the Hats, and their stuff has been used in several places, including RPG:LB.
Artist: The one who makes our amazing banners and badges!
Prizes and Inventory: This guy does the long, involved task of notifying and processing shipments for dozens of prizes each event. Also does some inventory management of our in-storage gear between events.

In general, the hours staff works vary greatly, from a single month or less, to the entire year.

The main idea behind staff compensation is to compensate for work that they are doing for the event that significantly impacts their available time. Very few people are going to be able to set aside multiple hours a day for a few weeks, or months, solely as a volunteer. And more importantly, people are not going to be able to make those commitments year in, year out, without burning out. This isn't the sort of job someone does for the money. It's way too stressful for that!

I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone. And I'm not looking to play hush-hush with what we're doing. That's not the goal at all. Staff pay might be private, but there's plenty of room to talk about anything else. So if you still have direct questions to something, ask.

Edit: I also wanted to make clear that this was not a shot at ESA whatsoever. Frankly it's unfair to both events (us and them) to make direct comparisons, and I was only pointing out the above to demonstrate that. Even the location of the events completely changes how the events must be managed, as Edenal and I discovered this morning talking about hotel contracts.

I've been waiting for Dave to write his followup before I posted.

1. Work hours are not divided equally, that would make little sense. There's people who work all year, some who work longer than 2 months, some that work off/on the entire year (programmers for example), etc. 
2. Some people assume that if it's on the budget, that money is spent. That's not how it works. It sets maximums. If staff works less hours, then it's not all paid out. If equipment is under $10k, then we don't spend $10k. 
3. Comparisons drawn to ESA are going to be very, very inaccurate. They don't have nearly the amount of work required to plan their events. due to size, purpose, etc.
4. ESA and other events (RPG:LB, Tip of the Hats, etc) benefit, for free, from some of the work our staff is paid for (the tracker and its programmers being most of it), and some have also made use of our servers at no cost to them. We give back to the community in this way.
5. This also includes things like our new stream layout system, which is very complex. RPG Limit Break was able to use that open sourced system for their stream this year. 
6. This was brought up elsewhere: this is a budget that is predicting the future. For instance, with equipment, there would be no way to give an exact breakdown of purchases when the purchases haven't been made. We've only just started, taking advantage of the sales going on now.

To give a brief overview of the work our staff does:

Planner/everything else: Right now, that's me, minus run-related stuff. Once Mike's back in action, it's his job. This means hunting down hotels, nailing down sponsorship needs after we're closing a deal with them, a handful of various contracts (including big hotel contract and charity contract), budget, etc. 
Operations/management: my normal job. Overseeing all the technical parts of the event, researching equipment, website work outside of the tracker, supervising the staff and getting answers for their questions, working with hotels on layout and IT, server maintenance, hardware modding/assembly, etc.
Sponsorships/social media/press: Self explanatory. Be working all year long to do this, particularly since sponsorship negotiations can take months in their own right.
Volunteer Coordination: Total of 3 people. They do the volunteer scheduling (and dealing with runner schedule conflicts), host interviews, and doing as much as they can to vet each volunteer. Also responsible for running the registration desk, shirts, freebies, etc.
Safety group: Total of 3 people, making sure people keep the place clean, keeping it safe, and enforcing hotel + event policies.
Tech coordinator: The guy in charge of making sure tech runs smoothly. Does a ton of work prior to the event as well as at the event, including setup/teardown. Has also done an amazing job of documenting our setup and optimizing it over time.
The committee: Varies, but is currently 4 not counting Mike. 
Tracker Programmers: 2 paid staff, who work on it off/on the entire year, as well as debug during the event.
Layout Designers: a programmer and a graphics guy, this team also works for Tip of the Hats, and their stuff has been used in several places, including RPG:LB.
Artist: The one who makes our amazing banners and badges!
Prizes and Inventory: This guy does the long, involved task of notifying and processing shipments for dozens of prizes each event. Also does some inventory management of our in-storage gear between events.

In general, the hours staff works vary greatly, from a single month or less, to the entire year.

The main idea behind staff compensation is to compensate for work that they are doing for the event that significantly impacts their available time. Very few people are going to be able to set aside multiple hours a day for a few weeks, or months, solely as a volunteer. And more importantly, people are not going to be able to make those commitments year in, year out, without burning out. This isn't the sort of job someone does for the money. It's way too stressful for that!

I don't think that comes as a surprise to anyone. And I'm not looking to play hush-hush with what we're doing. That's not the goal at all. Staff pay might be private, but there's plenty of room to talk about anything else. So if you still have direct questions to something, ask.

Edit: I also wanted to make clear that this was not a shot at ESA whatsoever. Frankly it's unfair to both events (us and them) to make direct comparisons, and I was only pointing out the above to demonstrate that. Even the location of the events completely changes how the events must be managed, as Edenal and I discovered this morning talking about hotel contracts.

Duke Bilgewater

2015-11-28 04:57:53 pm

Thanks for Dave and Cool Matty for providing some of this information publicly and clarifying a few things. It's a little odd that you don't specify whom some of these staff are when it's somewhat clear and has been shared publicly prior, but I understand wanting to protect their privacy and give a more general overview. It gives clearer context for a lot of this, the lack of which undeniably part of the problems laid out in this and other threads. It's hard to know where you stand in the dark.
That said, I hope that I am misreading that there are people who are principally "opposed to the business side of GDQs." There's a lot of concern about how the business side is being managed, but that concern comes specifically from the lack of concrete information, and it would be a shame if it were mischaracterized as the implied opposite of "willing to have a meaningful discussion". I know BroBuzz, Jymotion, and myself have all been active in recent feedback threads, and I wouldn't characterize their critiques or my own as coming from a principal opposition to GDQ being a business - but rather the degree to which it is (undeniably) a business. There's a lot of unrealistic critiques of GDQ out there, but part of the reason that they are unrealistic is because there isn't sufficient trust and transparency (the information that could come with that) to form the basis for a more "meaningful discussion". This thread has shown that these discussions can happen privately, and hopefully they can happen publicly in the future.

Quote from LLCoolDave:

If anything, compensating the runners would probably turn game submissions into more of a shit show than it already is.

I'm a little confused, could you clarify this statement? Unless I'm out of the loop on this or making some semantic misinterpretation, the suggestion that runners should be compensated for their time is, at best, rare; at worst, it has not been suggested seriously. The idea of paying runners was suggested several times in the "An Open Letter to the GDQ community", and dismissed by both other runners and GDQ staff. In my personal experience (discussing this issue with several other runners during SGDQ 2015), remitting registration fees for runners in the marathon was suggested frequently (and independently); in contrast, not a single person I talked to suggested that runners should be paid or otherwise compensated directly for their time.
If you're not suggesting that, my mistake.

Thanks for Dave and Cool Matty for providing some of this information publicly and clarifying a few things. It's a little odd that you don't specify whom some of these staff are when it's [url=https://forum.speeddemosarchive.com/post/agdq_2016_informationdirectory_thread.html]somewhat clear and has been shared publicly prior[/url], but I understand wanting to protect their privacy and give a more general overview. It gives clearer context for a lot of this, the lack of which undeniably part of the problems laid out in this and other threads. It's hard to know where you stand in the dark.
That said, I hope that I am misreading that there are people who are principally "opposed to the business side of GDQs." There's a lot of concern about how the business side is being managed, but that concern comes specifically from the lack of concrete information, and it would be a shame if it were mischaracterized as the implied opposite of "willing to have a meaningful discussion". I know BroBuzz, Jymotion, and myself have all been active in recent feedback threads, and I wouldn't characterize their critiques or my own as coming from a principal opposition to GDQ being a business - but rather the degree to which it is (undeniably) a business. There's a lot of unrealistic critiques of GDQ out there, but part of the reason that they are unrealistic is because there isn't sufficient trust and transparency (the information that could come with that) to form the basis for a more "meaningful discussion". This thread has shown that these discussions can happen privately, and hopefully they can happen publicly in the future.

[quote="LLCoolDave"]If anything, compensating the runners would probably turn game submissions into more of a shit show than it already is.[/quote]
I'm a little confused, could you clarify this statement? Unless I'm out of the loop on this or making some semantic misinterpretation, the suggestion that runners should be compensated for their time is, at best, rare; at worst, it has not been suggested seriously. The idea of paying runners was suggested several times in the "An Open Letter to the GDQ community", and dismissed by both other runners and GDQ staff. In my personal experience (discussing this issue with several other runners during SGDQ 2015), remitting registration fees for runners in the marathon was suggested frequently (and independently); in contrast, not a single person I talked to suggested that runners should be paid or otherwise compensated directly for their time. 
If you're not suggesting that, my mistake.

curmaniac

2015-11-28 04:58:59 pm

Hey Matty. Do you run GDQ?

LLCoolDave

Edit history:

LLCoolDave: 2015-11-28 05:15:27 pm

2015-11-28 05:15:12 pm

Quote from Duke Bilgewater:

That said, I hope that I am misreading that there are people who are principally "opposed to the business side of GDQs." There's a lot of concern about how the business side is being managed, but that concern comes specifically from the lack of concrete information, and it would be a shame if it were mischaracterized as the implied opposite of "willing to have a meaningful discussion". I know BroBuzz, Jymotion, and myself have all been active in recent feedback threads, and I wouldn't characterize their critiques or my own as coming from a principal opposition to GDQ being a business - but rather the degree to which it is (undeniably) a business.

This was not directed at any person in particular, but I remember a lot of the initial backlash in 2014 was directed at the fact that an arrangement was happening at all between PCF and Mike Uyama and not the specifics (or lack of disclosure of the specifics) of that arrangement. I do not know how large that crowd of people or how strong the prevalence of that thought still is today. In any case, that section was just me paraphrasing the biggest argument Matt brought up in our private discussion for why we were having it in private in the first place.

Quote from Duke Bilgewater:

In my personal experience (discussing this issue with several other runners during SGDQ 2015), remitting registration fees for runners in the marathon was suggested frequently (and independently); in contrast, not a single person I talked to suggested that runners should be paid or otherwise compensated directly for their time.
If you're not suggesting that, my mistake.

I was not suggesting that, and feel that doing so would create a lot of wrong incentives for participating in the events. I however can't deny the feeling that something seems off when the runners and hosts are off the payroll but the people putting them on a schedule are not. I do not currently have a good proposition to remedy this, at least to me, perceived mismatch in a satisfactory way. I'm not even sure it actually is a problem, it's just a detail that tingles something in my mind.

[quote="Duke Bilgewater"]That said, I hope that I am misreading that there are people who are principally "opposed to the business side of GDQs." There's a lot of concern about how the business side is being managed, but that concern comes specifically from the lack of concrete information, and it would be a shame if it were mischaracterized as the implied opposite of "willing to have a meaningful discussion". I know BroBuzz, Jymotion, and myself have all been active in recent feedback threads, and I wouldn't characterize their critiques or my own as coming from a principal opposition to GDQ being a business - but rather the degree to which it is (undeniably) a business. [/quote]

This was not directed at any person in particular, but I remember a lot of the initial backlash in 2014 was directed at the fact that an arrangement was happening at all between PCF and Mike Uyama and not the specifics (or lack of disclosure of the specifics) of that arrangement. I do not know how large that crowd of people or how strong the prevalence of that thought still is today. In any case, that section was just me paraphrasing the biggest argument Matt brought up in our private discussion for why we were having it in private in the first place.

[quote="Duke Bilgewater"]In my personal experience (discussing this issue with several other runners during SGDQ 2015), remitting registration fees for runners in the marathon was suggested frequently (and independently); in contrast, not a single person I talked to suggested that runners should be paid or otherwise compensated directly for their time. 
If you're not suggesting that, my mistake.[/quote]

I was not suggesting that, and feel that doing so would create a lot of wrong incentives for participating in the events. I however can't deny the feeling that something seems off when the runners and hosts are off the payroll but the people putting them on a schedule are not. I do not currently have a good proposition to remedy this, at least to me, perceived mismatch in a satisfactory way. I'm not even sure it actually is a problem, it's just a detail that tingles something in my mind.

Duke Bilgewater

2015-11-28 05:40:32 pm

Okay, thank you for clearing that up. I've got to get on a flight, otherwise I'd take some time to suggest a potential solution to the issue in the second paragraph. Regarding hosts, there a lot of runners who believe that the quality of their run is dependent upon their respective hosts. They definitely deserve something - whether it's registration remittance or direct compensation for their role in the marathon. Hope there's time to discuss this.

jymotion

Edit history:

jymotion: 2015-11-28 06:04:36 pm

2015-11-28 06:00:39 pm

Quote from Duke Bilgewater:

I know BroBuzz, Jymotion, and myself have all been active in recent feedback threads, and I wouldn't characterize their critiques or my own as coming from a principal opposition to GDQ being a business - but rather the degree to which it is (undeniably) a business.

Just want to confirm this. I do understand that there are costs associated with running these events and I'm not personally the type to be mad on the internet just for the fun of it. I love speedrunning as a hobby and I care about the charity for personal reasons, which is why the idea of a few people seemingly capitalizing on those two things for their own gain bothers me.

If that comment was in reference to people like me (I don't know if it was or who even said it, since it was conducted outside the forums), then it kinda confirms a fear of mine. People who want to get their runs approved by the staff are often hesitant to comment, people who have stopped caring about GDQ don't bother opening these threads, and the few who actually do write out their frustrations are brushed off as cynical outliers.

Question related to the budget: If new equipment is purchased for every event, where does the old equipment end up? I assume thousands of dollars of barely-used equipment are not being thrown away.

[quote="Duke Bilgewater"]I know BroBuzz, Jymotion, and myself have all been active in recent feedback threads, and I wouldn't characterize their critiques or my own as coming from a principal opposition to GDQ being a business - but rather the degree to which it is (undeniably) a business.[/quote]
Just want to confirm this. I do understand that there are costs associated with running these events and I'm not personally the type to be mad on the internet just for the fun of it. I love speedrunning as a hobby and I care about the charity for personal reasons, which is why the idea of a few people seemingly capitalizing on those two things for their own gain bothers me.

If that comment was in reference to people like me (I don't know if it was or who even said it, since it was conducted outside the forums), then it kinda confirms a fear of mine. People who want to get their runs approved by the staff are often hesitant to comment, people who have stopped caring about GDQ don't bother opening these threads, and the few who actually do write out their frustrations are brushed off as cynical outliers.

Question related to the budget: If new equipment is purchased for every event, where does the old equipment end up? I assume thousands of dollars of barely-used equipment are not being thrown away.

Cool Matty

2015-11-28 06:20:10 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Duke: I didn't detail staff because I couldn't remember who was and wasn't on the list. Generally just don't want the programmers getting bothered because they don't need to be Tongue

Otherwise everyone's already seen/talked with the staff in one manner or another.

jymotion: There's very little equipment that goes completely unused from earlier purchases. Stuff that used to be "primary" equipment, such as our old projector + screen, is now used as the eating area screen. We still use most of our mics, with the remaining 3-4 being spares in case of damage. Each location has one of our older mixers, which also acts as a backup in case our digital mixer fails for whatever reason (we couldn't hold the event without it really). We're expanding the number of gaming PCs, so that's some of it.

That actually covers most of the equipment from my memory, at least any big ticket (greater than $100) items.

TheMG2

2015-11-28 06:22:34 pm

Isn't the question about old equipment asked every year? I remember seeing the question AND the answer before. You should probably include that in the main post in the future.

dwangoAC

2015-11-29 12:59:15 am

Keeper of TASBot

Quote from Duke Bilgewater:

Regarding hosts, there a lot of runners who believe that the quality of their run is dependent upon their respective hosts. They definitely deserve something - whether it's registration remittance or direct compensation for their role in the marathon.

Hosts are being offered a refund on their registration fees for AGDQ 2016 according to the volunteers thread. Assuming GDQ has the necessary funds, I hope that it will continue to be possible to extend free registration to volunteers, runners, and corporate sponsors at future events. I can certainly understand the need to have a considerable emergency fund in case of low turnout or other catastrophe, however, and I'd understand if registration either needed to be increased in price or if the number of free badges needed to be reduced in order to stay within a safe margin. I'm just hoping it can remain free for future events if at all possible.

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2015-11-29 10:38:21 am

2015-11-29 10:37:59 am

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Oh, yes, I missed that part dwango. Yes, hosts are volunteers like they've always been, and just like other volunteers, will receive refunds if they're selected this AGDQ.

dangodofthunder

2016-04-11 03:04:14 pm

Matty, let me just ask two financial related questions that I've heard around a little bit. I believe there is likely a reasonable explanation but it just hasn't been provided yet.

The cost of the hotel rooms has gone up from 99/109 to 115/125. What was the reason for this? Were we unable to negotiate a bigger discount than at Crowne Plaza? Is the discount similar but due to location the hotel charges more? Did they have less of a need to fill due to the location being so close to major sites like Target Field?

The cost of admission has gone from 40-50 for early-late registration, to 50-60-70 for early-normal-late registration. What has been the source of this pricing increase? Is that the discussion regarding a gaming room being a permanent fixture of GDQ events? Is that simply inflation rearing its ugly head? Or again, is it our transition to a downtown location playing a part? I would have hoped that the overhead costs have been a bit lower since this is our second year in Minnesota.

Thank you in advance Matty! <3

Matty, let me just ask two financial related questions that I've heard around a little bit. I believe there is likely a reasonable explanation but it just hasn't been provided yet.

The cost of the hotel rooms has gone up from 99/109 to 115/125. What was the reason for this? Were we unable to negotiate a bigger discount than at Crowne Plaza? Is the discount similar but due to location the hotel charges more? Did they have less of a need to fill due to the location being so close to major sites like Target Field?

The cost of admission has gone from 40-50 for early-late registration, to 50-60-70 for early-normal-late registration. What has been the source of this pricing increase? Is that the discussion regarding a gaming room being a permanent fixture of GDQ events? Is that simply inflation rearing its ugly head? Or again, is it our transition to a downtown location playing a part? I would have hoped that the overhead costs have been  a bit lower since this is our second year in Minnesota.

Thank you in advance Matty! <3

Cool Matty

2016-04-11 06:17:17 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

The Crowne Plaza was in the middle of a transition / renovation phase, they were basically desperate. Summer rates are usually in the $110-120 ballpark (SGDQ2013 was $120, SGDQ2014 was $110), and we actually negotiated pretty hard for our rates and offerings. We even managed some parking vouchers this year, which as those who drove last year know, easily makes up for the hotel room increase.

The arcade room is just one small factor (and dependent on availability). We budgeted for it for SGDQ but if plans don't come together, then it'll be kicked down the line to AGDQ and next SGDQ. It's not a factor of the downtown location, but rather overall event costs going up. We have more outside help to cover expenses for, security to hire, we're taking on more conference costs (particularly internet), etc. Inflation's a minor factor as well, but that's not something we directly track, it's just incidental in the rising costs of everything else. Finally, people may remember we've charged $50 starting costs in the past as well, it's simply a matter of what we predict our costs will look like, and what we want to do. One of the major driving factors has been the waiving of runners and volunteers, which takes over $10,000 from our available cash for an event.

The Crowne Plaza was in the middle of a transition / renovation phase, they were basically desperate. Summer rates are usually in the $110-120 ballpark (SGDQ2013 was $120, SGDQ2014 was $110), and we actually negotiated pretty hard for our rates and offerings. We even managed some parking vouchers this year, which as those who drove last year know, easily makes up for the hotel room increase.

The arcade room is just one small factor (and dependent on availability). We budgeted for it for SGDQ but if plans don't come together, then it'll be kicked down the line to AGDQ and next SGDQ. It's not a factor of the downtown location, but rather overall event costs going up. We have more outside help to cover expenses for, security to hire, we're taking on more conference costs (particularly internet), etc. Inflation's a minor factor as well, but that's not something we directly track, it's just incidental in the rising costs of everything else. Finally, people may remember we've charged $50 starting costs in the past as well, it's simply a matter of what we predict our costs will look like, and what we want to do. One of the major driving factors has been the waiving of runners and volunteers, which takes over $10,000 from our available cash for an event.

dangodofthunder

2016-04-11 07:35:28 pm

Understood. I have no complaints or arguments to make with those. I'd definitely agree that filling a hotel under heavy renovations that was a bit out of the way from the main area of tourism/commerce meant that we had excellent leverage in negotiations, and I will admit to not knowing what room prices were prior to SGDQ2015. Parking vouchers definitely will help with what we as a community will pay but it's only focused on a smaller number of folks (for instance, due to having actual options in the area for food, I will not rent a vehicle this time).

I just felt like the subject should be addressed. As a community I feel like we are more sensitive to any price increase than a typical conference or convention or meetup due to our ages skewing relatively young and an above-average portion of our community utilizing crowdfunding and donations to attend. That's all.