Hmm, I see this topic has wondered somewhat from the original question, partly, I assume as a result of my comment about entry costs at the Dulwich Glass Fair, or the TGCF - what a mouthful when translated into the confusing title 'The Glass Collector's Fair'. See also flyers for Gaydon which proclaims 'The ORIGINAL National Glass Collector's Fair', hence possible confusion as well as lacking a snappy title. Perhaps that's why the latter is more often than not referred to as either 'Gaydon', or even 'Birmingham' as a reference to its former location.
IMHO the Dulwich Fair failed to promote itself through an inability to gain editorial to back a rather strange advertising campaign in a number of up-market magazines, including 'Elle Decoration'. Virtually no trade promotion and no trade advertising. Why ignore a tried and tested route - used originally to great effect by the promotors of the Birmingham glass fair based at the Motor Cycle Museum (Gaydon) and now by the Cambridge Glass Fair?
I understand that the idea was to reach a wider audience that had not been introduced to glass for the Dulwich based fair, but why throw the baby out with the bath water? Without effective explaination of what the uninitiated might expect to see at the fair the advertising was all but bound to fail!
Exhibitors pay for a stand at any fair and by so doing they effectively share in the risk taken by the promotor, agreed on a smaller scale, but nevertheless a share. If that promotor makes mistakes then he, or she, risks that share .... but without any control on the exhibitor's part. Therefore, it is important to know that the promotion of a fair, however large or small, is going to produce a reasonable to good gate - which is what I can expect at Cambridge, and presumably at the fair announced by those organisers called 'Reflect', which is to take place in London in June 2008.
Does that mean it is bound to fail because, as Graham asked at the beginning of this thread, there are already too many fairs? None of us can truely answer that, especially as it is a new venue, but the organisers track record suggests their input will increase its probability of success.
Strangely the question about too many fairs was not being asked when the Woking Glass Fair existed, in fact Cambridge was in the same situation as Dulwich is now - recently started. And look what happened there.
The question I believe we should be asking is NOT are there too too many glass fairs, BUT rather how can we convert a larger proportion of the population into the joys and qualities of glass? At present only a tiny part of a percentage are interested in glass. Surely it is not impossible to increase this percentage, even if only by a tiny amount? I believe that the key to that is by promotion, by dealers, fair organisers and glass organisations, but also by the support and evangelising of collectors.
Promotion by fair organisers costs time and money and they are entitled to reclaim that cost, unless they are doing it for love. Like anybody else, if it is their living, it is a necessity that they charge for that work. The usual equation for this is that the stands pay the overheads and the gate gives the profit. Depending upon the organiser the profit can be built in before the doors open, or it may be that the gate determines break even. I know of examples of each scenario.
Lastly, since there has been discussion about fair entry, I will say this, the old expression 'You pays ya money, and ya takes ya choice' comes to mind - but by not paying think about what you miss seeing, handling and maybe even buying!! Not to mention a singular lack of support toward a subject that one is interested in and which helps produce new collecting (and therefore dealing) areas within the subject of glass - which we all benefit from.
Happy collecting and dealing in 2008 to everyone. Nigel
Topic: Are there too many glass fairs in the UK? (Read 5891 times)
