(Apologies for cross-posting)

I think that there have been a lot of organisational problems at this 
year's BA meeting. Some may have been unavoidable, stemming from 
running the Festival within a larger event - and so are unlikely to 
be repeated. Others however, for example, the lack of any badges and 
a byzantine ticketing system, were presumably deliberate management 
decisions.

There was a lot of talk in the breaks at the Science Communicators 
Forum of the need for a 'BA users group' to provide a forum for 
discussion with the BA on facilities and arrangements for the annual 
meeting (A comparable case is the annual ASE meeting where there is 
an 'ASE meets the exhibitors' session on the last day).

The BA meeting is an important event in many organisations' 
communications schedule, but as with any other meeting or exhibition, 
organisations will only attend or put on events within it if they 
feel that it is the most appropriate venue to deliver the audience 
they want to reach. In times of shrinking budgets, attendance and 
participation in any meeting has to be justified against strategies 
and priorities. Rather than having a catalogue of 'me too' 
experiences on the list, perhaps it would be more constructive if we 
could pull together some sort of 'users' meeting to ensure that, 
together with the BA, we can tackle what are percieved as major 
problems.

Dianne







At 2:54 pm +0100 12/9/00, J Ralph Blanchfield wrote:
>Hello Everyone,
>
>Anne Nash, organiser of the lunchtime session on 7 September at the 
>BA Festival,
>has authorised me to post here on her behalf the letter of complaint that she
>has sent to Peter Briggs. I was present at the event, and I can certainly
>confirm all the deficiencies of which she complains, and I agree that they
>deserve wide airing rather than being buried in the BA filing system.
>
>Best wishes
>J Ralph Blanchfield MBE
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>27, Severn Drive,
>Walton on Thames
>Surrey KT12 3BH
>
>12 September 2000
>
>
>Mr Peter Briggs
>Chief Executive
>British Association for the Advancement of Science
>23, Savile Row,
>London W1S 2EZ
>
>
>Dear Mr Briggs,
>
>BA Festival of Science
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>As organiser for the lunchtime session on Thursday 7 September, I write to
>express my dissatisfaction about the organisation of the BA meeting.
>
>Meeting room
>~~~~~~~~~~
>* The room allocated (340) was changed to 311 after the programme had gone to
>press but session organisers were not advised of this. I found out by default.
>
>* There was no addendum slip put into the programmes either sent out 
>in advance
>or available 'on the day'. Not helpful for visitors!
>
>*  Directional signs provided by the BA were totally inadequate. The room was
>not easy to find. The other organiser and I both had to put up our own notices
>to provide adequate signing. (The speakers' room was equally 'discreetly'
>hidden)
>
>Structure of the programme
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>*  When I applied for a lunchtime slot, the timing was clearly set out on a
>sheet giving a clear hour from 1 - 2 pm for the lunchtime session 
>with a quarter
>of an hour either side for set up/clear up. BUT the programme as 
>printed did not
>reflect these times, the afternoon session being timed to start at 2pm.
>Effectively, we lost 25% of our time! This is not acceptable.
>
>* The lunchtime session wasn't advertised in the programme adjacent 
>to the full
>day meeting on 'the future of food'. Why not? They complement each other.
>
>The objectives?
>~~~~~~~~~~~
>Clearly the BA's objective was to satisfy the media and to publicise the BA.
>This demanded a lot from the speakers in preparing abstracts, full papers for
>the website and attendance at press conferences. Fine, but what 
>about attracting
>the public to come and listen, question and meet with the speakers?
>
>From my perspective, there seemed to be no real interest in attracting a live
>audience. Apart from the difficulties, summarised above, that a member of the
>public might encounter at the time of their visit, the timing of the meeting
>itself and publication of the programme in the middle of the summer holidays
>precluding a visit to the Festival being integrated into any school 
>or college's
>programme.  Interest groups / organisations take a break in the summer, so
>attracting visits by them via the programme is a lost cause also.
>
>I realise that you can't guarantee an audience or force people to come but do
>you have to make it so difficult for them?
>
>I am most disappointed and disillusioned about the motive for the Festival
>itself. The organisation of whose behalf I acted paid £500 for the 
>privilege of
>participating. The speakers put a lot of effort into satisfying BA demands but
>what real support did the BA give the session?
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Mrs Anne Nash
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Dianne Stilwell
Chair - STEMPRA
(Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine Public Relations Association)
c/o The Institute of Physics
76 Portland Place
London
W1B 1NT

Tel 020 7470 4875
Fax 020 7470 4848

e-mail [log in to unmask]

STEMPRA website   www2.ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk/stempra



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%