[nimos]

I doubt they would cancel a contract already in place for that reason.

Not renew the contract - sure. But canceling an already scheduled event because of low revenue per guest doesn't seem very likely to me?

Or maybe it was some sort of ongoing agreement and canceling it was effectively "not renewing".

[johnnyanmac]

>But canceling an already scheduled event because of low revenue per guest doesn't seem very likely to me?

Not to be TOO snarky, but given how quickly corporate cancels employee labor despite rising revenue, it would not surprise me for other corporate to also cancel "low paying customers" for "high paying customers". Loyalty is beyond dead so cancelling a contract is just a cost of business if they feel the alternative gives more money.

[TeMPOraL]

> it would not surprise me for other corporate to also cancel "low paying customers" for "high paying customers"

At least going by all the entrepreneurship articles I've read over the decade, "firing your customers" is a term of art, and a recommended approach for dealing with unprofitable and/or annoying customers - so I guess this shouldn't be surprising.

> Loyalty is beyond dead so cancelling a contract is just a cost of business if they feel the alternative gives more money.

Not to be TOO snarky, but that's kind of the point of contracts - contract cancellation terms aren't an "or else..." threat, but rather an agreed upon exit strategy. Termination fines aren't punishment, they're compensation for inconvenience.

[PrimeMcFly]

> Not to be TOO snarky

Repeating this verbatim in your reply means you are trying to be pretty snarky, fyi.

[boringg]

I mean they were both being intentionally snarky. The second snarky comment was used in a mocking tone because the first comment didnt seem to have much empirical evidence to support it

[johnnyanmac]

I don't, and that's why I preferenced it as such. Sort of like how you'll self-preface yourself with something like "nit:" before making a nitpick that's meant to be treated as a small note but nothing to consider or delve too strongly over.

The idea is to diffuse siutations like this before it comes about, but I guess nothing is perfect.

[Anechoic]

Not to be TOO snarky, but given how quickly corporate cancels employee labor despite rising revenue, it would not surprise me for other corporate to also cancel "low paying customers" for "high paying customers". Loyalty is beyond dead so cancelling a contract is just a cost of business if they feel the alternative gives more money.

If they canceled a year or so before the con, I could see that. But to cancel seven month before the conference? There's no way they will get a decent-sized substitute in the space before then, so I don't see how this would be anything but a money-loser. Not to mention other conferences might be less willing to commit to long-term deals if they see that the contract can be canceled on a whim.

[djmips]

I feel like the speculated replacement was random guests and not an event.

[Sebb767]

> Or maybe it was some sort of ongoing agreement and canceling it was effectively "not renewing".

The announcement effectively calls it "no-notice cancellation" and overall it reads like they were already deep in the planning phase when it happened, which seems unlikely if a renewal was pending.

[bawolff]

Its odd though - i would assume a conference of this size would have penalties in the contract if the venue decides to pull out without cause or sufficient notice.

[Arrath]

To a point yeah but the venue also has the power not to sign the contract in the first place (ime the venue is the side typically negotiating from the position of power) if they think the penalties are too high on their end.

In all likelihood they ran the math and figured it was worth it to yank the rug out from under Defcon, penalties be damned.

[technick]

I will need to dig up the archives from DC 27 when the deal with Caesars forum was officially announced, but if memory serves me correctly DT said it was a 5 or 10 year contract. So unless there was some verbaige in the contract that allows Caesars to cancel for any reason, they're going to be cutting DEFCON a check.

[TeMPOraL]

A 5-year contract starting at DC 27 would hold thru DC 31, so DC 32 fits the "not renewing" hypothesis.

[ghaff]

Who knows? But a more likely hypothesis is that the organizers were betting that they could come to terms on a renewal and at the end of the day they couldn't.

[nebula8804]

There was some announcement at the closing talks last year of the same venue being booked for the next 2-3 cons I think.

[surge]

I see people go all out in LV and drop a lot of money at restaurants. I guess it depends. Then again if you've already been in LV for a few days due to BH you might be over the bell curve on spending for the week. I guess it depends on when you get in. I tend to drop more money Wed-Thur.

[flomo]

Everyone is missing "but now held at the Las Vegas Convention Center (LVCC) with workshops and training at the Sahara" part. So this more like they got passed to a different venue. Not "vegas hates them".

[vertis]

The post says they had to do significant work to secure another venue. While it's possible the author could be lying there is no evidence of this so we must, at this point, take them at their word.

[dsr_]

Arranging a convention site contract is always a lot of work, even if (hypothetically) the Caesar's rep suggested that they try LVCC.

[vertis]

The convention has been in Las Vegas for decades so I suspect they know ALL the options anyway.