Why the merger of two categories?

[DaveStebbins]

Then you agree with me, as well, excepting that I do not agree with the nature of the hurdle in place that reveal and fusangite advocate. To sum up, fusangite and reveal support the barrier that costs the publisher/manufacturer/podcaster money and creates a physical submission (where none naturally exists) whereas my suggestion could cost the publisher/manufacturer/podcaster a like amount of money that would be channeled toward directly funding the ENnies program.

I think you're attributing words to me that I did not write. I never said I preferred a hardcopy submittal over the entry fee. I stated my agreement that what makes things easiest for the 'professionals' at the expense of the volunteers wasn't a good idea.

For the record, I don't think reveal and fusangite have stated that preference which you attribute to them either. They have stated that they like a barrier to entry, which I agree with. They have also stated that the current barrier isn't really all that bad to them, and again I agree. I haven't seen either one express a disdain for the entry fee idea, though. It seems to me they are saying the current barrier is better then nothing. I have seen neither one say it is better than the entry fee idea. Did I gloss over some posts?

 

[Mark]

For the record, I don't think reveal and fusangite have stated that preference which you attribute to them either.

They both "advocate" the CDs idea, as I posted, though I have not yet seen them post here as to whether or not they prefer it over the newer structure which I advocate. I did not and will not attribute a "preference" to them and await their further posting. For the record, however, I do not think that a "better than nothing" position is adequate in the face of the downsides (waste, loss of potential funding, etc.).

 

[DaveStebbins]

They both "advocate" the CDs idea, as I posted, though I have not yet seen them post here as to whether or not they prefer it over the newer structure which I advocate. I did not and will not attribute a "preference" to them and await their further posting. For the record, however, I do not think that a "better than nothing" position is adequate in the face of the downsides (waste, loss of potential funding, etc.).

There are three ideas in play currently. The professionals want all barriers removed or they're going to take their toys and go home. reveal and fusangite advocated the current method in response to those calls. Neither has weighed in on the entry fee idea.

I guess where we disagree is that I think the hardcopy idea is indeed better than nothing. It creates waste, yes, but it also makes things much easier for the volunteers who have to go over every single submission. In my mind, the latter more than makes up for the former. I have spoken with many past judges at length about the amount of time they invest in judging the ENnies, so nothing you can say will sway me away from the idea that making things easier for the judges is a 'good thing.'

The current method doesn't create a loss of funding because, to my knowledge, the entry fee idea has not received much play. Dextra seems taken with the idea and I believe that, in the future, it is the best way to go.

You can say things aren't as good as they could be, because the entry fee isn't in place. However I believe the current method is WAY better than nothing.

 

[reveal]

They both "advocate" the CDs idea, as I posted, though I have not yet seen them post here as to whether or not they prefer it over the newer structure which I advocate. I did not and will not attribute a "preference" to them and await their further posting. For the record, however, I do not think that a "better than nothing" position is adequate in the face of the downsides (waste, loss of potential funding, etc.).

The entry fee is a bad, bad, bad idea. All it will accomplish is cause people to accuse the ENnies of "awarding" nominations to those that can pay the entry fee. Basically, people will think that publishers with deep pockets are buying votes.

 

[reveal]

*double post*

 

[DaveStebbins]

The entry fee is a bad, bad, bad idea. All it will accomplish is cause people to accuse the ENnies of "awarding" nominations to those that can pay the entry fee. Basically, people will think that publishers with deep pockets are buying votes.

Even if the entry fee is about what it would cost to duplicate and mail six CDs?

As for what people will believe, well, there will always be an element that believes, and voices their belief, of the worst. I see them as marginal and of no consequence.

 

[reveal]

Even if the entry fee is about what it would cost to duplicate and mail six CDs?

As for what people will believe, well, there will always be an element that believes, and voices their belief, of the worst. I see them as marginal and of no consequence.

I knew someone would bring that up.

See, with the cost of CDs, none of that goes to the ENnie judges or staff. All the costs are paid by the entrant simply to mail it in. If they have to pay a fee, people will think that those with deep pockets will be able to nominate more items. If I were a publisher, I can put many, many items onto a CD and mail it in. One relatively low cost for all of my entrees. If a fee were in place, I'd have to pay per entry, which could end up costing me a lot more in the long run. More entrees = More of a chance of them getting nominations = "Buying nominations."

 

[DaveStebbins]

I knew someone would bring that up.

See, with the cost of CDs, none of that goes to the ENnie judges or staff. All the costs are paid by the entrant simply to mail it in. If they have to pay a fee, people will think that those with deep pockets will be able to nominate more items. If I were a publisher, I can put many, many items onto a CD and mail it in. One relatively low cost for all of my entrees. If a fee were in place, I'd have to pay per entry, which could end up costing me a lot more in the long run. More entrees = More of a chance of them getting nominations = "Buying nominations."

Yes, the cost does scale. I think Dex mentioned in passing something like $20 + $5/entry, or a cost plus scale like that.

Given the fund-raising that goes on to pay for the ENnies, I think most people would know that no one is getting rich in the deal. There are always those who believe in conspiracies and I'm sure even now there are those who think Dex is making money on the show.

I can understand your hesitancy to fuel ignorant theories. Ignorance can be cured by letting people know the truth; stupid, however, is forever.

 

[Mark]

I have spoken with many past judges at length about the amount of time they invest in judging the ENnies, so nothing you can say will sway me away from the idea that making things easier for the judges is a 'good thing.'

You're speaking (in essence) with one now and it is my belief that being able to download entries (that are electronic) at my own convenience is far easier than dealing with CDs (a technology on the verge of obsolescence given flash drives and DVDs). With the increase in the number of people who use mobile devices, it makes good sense.

The entry fee is a bad, bad, bad idea. All it will accomplish is cause people to accuse the ENnies of "awarding" nominations to those that can pay the entry fee. Basically, people will think that publishers with deep pockets are buying votes.

Yet, as the system exists now, anyone with a large sum of money can be perceived as buying votes (not my expression or feeling, but yours) by sponsoring the ENnies rather than having all participants give a nominal entry fee for each submission and have those wishing to submit electronically have the fee increased commensurate with the shipping costs shouldered by print publishers.

Your logic does not track.

 

[reveal]

Yet, as the system exists now, anyone with a large sum of money can be perceived as buying votes (not my expression or feeling, but yours) by sponsoring the ENnies rather than having all participants give a nominal entry fee for each submission and have those wishing to submit electronically have the fee increased commensurate with the shipping costs shouldered by print publishers.

Your logic does not track.

The system, as it is now, makes it fair across the board for anyone to burn and send in their entries. If a person on a low budget wants to send in entires, they can burn everything onto one disc, make five copies of it, and send it for around $30 (I did a little bit of research into the costs and that's what I came up with). A one-time fee. We'll say that each disc has five things on it. No money goes to the ENnies.

What if, instead, we had a system in place where each entrant was assessed a fee of $5. For those five entries, the person would pay $25. That's cheaper, yes, but it's only $5 cheaper. Is it really worth all this complaining for $5? And those with deeper pockets who have many more items published can, currently, burn their stuff onto one cd (PDFs and MP3s don't take up that much room) and send it in. But if they had to submit everything, they could easily afford to do so, thereby fueling the "it's more of a rich publishers game now" theory. My logic is sound.