Re: Proposal - 2nd Draft in Progress

["Roger S. Miller" <rgrmill@rt66.com>]

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, James Purchase wrote:

James, I have a few specific comments on the draft proposal.  Some more
general comments are at the end.
 
> I. Preamble

I think that using an active voice would improve the preamble.  I also
think this would be a good place to stress the artistic goals of the
show.

> 
> II. Title
> 
> AGA International Aquascaping Showcase & Competition

Fine, but I don't think the title needs a four item description.

> 
> III. Venue

I think you could probably say that this will be on facilities provided by
Erik Olson, unless Erik wants this opportunity to back out.  I don't think
we've contemplated any other. Again, active voice is a good thing.

> 
> IV. Entrance Eligibility

I have no problem with brackish-water tanks being in the competition, but
I think if you're going to judge paludariums then you also need to make
that a separate division.  IMHO, paludariums aren't very similar to
aquariums - they seem to have more in common with ponds, which we don't
allow.
 
> V. Submission Format

This may be a my local vernacular, but I think what you are calling
transparencies, I call slides.  What I call transparencies are another
thing altogether - they're a (usually) page-sized, transparent sheet with
printed material or graphics used for overhead projection.  The difference
could lead to some confusion.

We need to point out that no matter what form the material is submitted
in, it will be judged in an electronic form.

> VI. Submission Components

This could be reduced to three components:  the entry form, which will
include a number of details including the aquascape details and the
optional description, the photos, and the sketch.

Requiring the sketch from all entrants implies a large increase in labor,
scanning the sketches on paper, and organizing and posting the
electronic sketches.  I don't think the sketch adds as much to the
show/competition as it adds to the labor.

Could we instead request a sketch only from winning entries?

Also, I think that the optional description will be very useful aid to
judging, as it might clarify the aquarists' intent when the photos aren't
clear enough.  I'd like it more if the description were required.

Rather than saying "Submissions may be made electronically, via the
Internet..." it might be better to say "Submission may be made by
email..."
 
One thing all us volunteers can do is offer local assistance with
submissions, with our contact information attached to flyers that promote
the contest in local venues.  This also would show a more personal
committment to the contest than is typical of web-based efforts.  That
might "resonate" with the AGA MC.

Skip a few...
 
> XI. Judging

Judges must be conversant with the internet or at least with computers and
image-viewing software. Judges who do not read English will be provided
with assistance.

I think more needs to be said about the "Peoples Choice" judging.

I would feel better if Judging section indicated that judging would be
based heavily on artistic content.  Otherwise they my feel deceived.

Things that need to be added to the proposal:

BUDGET.  (I know, there wasn't one in my 1st draft) How can we submit a
proposal with out an estimate of costs and income?  We can't even start
discussing fees (one form of income) without knowing the costs. I think
we'll find two categories of costs - those that can be estimated on a
per-contestant basis, and those that are lump sums.  I suggest that we
structure entry fees to cover per-contestant costs.  AGA can subsidize
member's entries.  I think we should also ask AGA to cover the lump sum
costs and in return offer AGA the income from sales of the CD, which would
be done along with their book sales.  Perhaps we could also stipulate that
50% of the income from sales in excess of AGA's expenditure for lump sum
costs should be reserved by AGA for subsequent contests.

Incidentally, this "committee" is no more an entity than APD, so we 
have no financial vehicles.  We must be completely dependent on AGA (or
some other party) for that, we can't own anything, and we have little
legal basis from which to deal with AGA or anyone else.

And finally (I know, I know you asked us not to discuss X'd items, but
this is in context), I suspect that the per-contestant costs will be so
low that we'll look *really* silly charging an entry fee on that basis.  
"Please include a check or money order for your $0.33US entry fee."  
Pardon me?


SALES PITCH.  (Another thing left from my 1st draft) Proposals are
supposed to be a sales vehicle. Someplace this needs to include a clear
statment of all the good things that this contest does for AGA.


PERSONNEL, QUALIFICATIONS.  (Yet another item left from the 1st draft)
While this may seem unnecessary, I suspect that the AGA MC might feel a
bit better if the "committee" had names.  They will know Erik, and James'
name is up front, but the rest of the committee may need to put their
names on the thing as well, if for no other reason than to demonstrate
that we have a few warm bodies to carry the thing off.


Roger


  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest