Alternative navigation

The Cancellation of EGGS Reunion 2004

A post mortem review

After the first EGGS reunion in June 2000 I wrote to everyone who attended seeking feedback on the event. One of the questions asked was “should we do it again and if so, when?”. At that time, the majority view of those responding was that another one should be held in four years, i.e. 2004. 

I canvassed opinion on this issue via the on-line polls during 2002/03 and again there was a clear consensus of opinion supporting 2004. In addition, in early 2003 I selected a sample of people who had originally expressed this view to see if they still felt that four years was the right interval. I had also received many positive e-mails from people who had only just discovered the site and were eager to attend the next event as soon as possible. To be fair, I also received feedback from a few who thought that it would be a bad idea to stage another event ‘so soon’ after the first one but this opinion was very much in a minority and of a similar level to that received for the first event which turned out to be a success.

In other words, the decision to go for 2004 was based on clear feedback from the majority of a statistically significant sample of people.

So taking all of this on board, I went to see Roger Moore (deputy head of Northolt High) in early 2003 to pencil in a date. My original intention was to hold the event as near to the 4th anniversary of the 2000 reunion as I could, meaning that a date of 5 June 2004 would be set. However, I had received a fair number of emails from people anticipating this and warning that this clashed with the D-Day anniversary commemorations and that they thought it would be better to plumb for an alternative date. When I discussed this point with Roger, he expressed the view that from the school’s point of view it would be preferable to hold the event at the beginning of the half term break rather than at the end, in order to allow more time to clear up and prepare the school for opening. Thus the date of 29 May 2004 was set, and this was prominently announced on this web site on 5 March 2003, some 14 months advance notification.

The next stage was to calculate the fixed and variable costs of the event, and I was aiming to keep the ticket price as near as possible to the £15 that was charged in 2000. However, the cost of hiring the premises had risen steeply (almost three times what we paid in 2000) and also inflation had taken its toll on the other costs involved. The ticket price was working out to be nearer £20 than £15, but as we had some cash left in the kitty from 2000, I decided that people who had paid before would get some of their money back by offering a discount of £1.50 so that at least for them the increase from £15 was in line with inflation. The end result of all of the economics factors was that the break-even point (ie to become financially viable) of the event was determined to be 450 ticket sales (which was much the same number as the 2000 event).  Given the level of apparent support and the knowledge that previously we had hit sales of 700+ tickets, I felt reasonably comfortable with this at this stage.

Having set the time and date, the next task was to inform everybody: I was aware that only 100 or so people regularly visit the site and I was equally aware that many of the email addresses given to me in 2000 were no longer operational. Nevertheless, as a preliminary move, emails were sent to over 500 people on the database of which approximately 150 bounced back as undeliverable (i.e. they were obsolete email addresses and I had received no notification of the person’s revised contact details). In other words, 350 emails were apparently successfuly delivered (although whether they were actually read is another matter).

After a discussion with the other organisers it was decided that in order to ensure that as many as possible were made aware of the event we would circulate the details by post to over 750 people who had either attended before and / or for whom we had a ‘reliable’ postal address. This was a gamble because the cost of such a mailshot is substantial (copying, 2nd class postage & envelope alone equates to 30p) to say nothing of the time involved. In this mailshot I asked for people to let me know as soon as possible whether or not they wanted to attend the planned event, and if they did, to enclose either post-dated payment if possible in order to reduce the administrative task of chasing up payment later, or an alternative option just to promise to pay by April 2004.

The mass mailshot was sent out at the end of October just as members of the post office union staged unofficial strikes, but I was unaware of this situation until it was too late. Whether the strikes had any bearing on the subsequent lack of response is something that I guess we will never know.

By December 2003, only 60 people had formally reserved tickets, and another 120 had expressed interest by email but not followed up with a formal written confirmation as requested. A number of others had let me know that they would not be able to attend.  By comparison, at this stage of the 2000 reunion we were already comfortably above our break-even point. I was starting to feel that things were not going quite as planned, however, I felt that many people just needed reminding, and so we launched a campaign involving emails and telephone calls.  We did consider a further mailshot, but it was felt that this further expense was difficult to justify if it was likely to fall on stony ground. The most worrying factor in all of this was that many of the people who had said they wanted another reunion in 2004 failed to contact us.

Before continuing, I need to mention this because it is clear from comments subsequently made that it is not appreciated by some how much organisation is needed for a large event like this; it is probably as complex as (if not more so) a large wedding reception - it’s not just a simple matter of booking the premises, there are also matters like licensing, badging, ticketing, catering, bar arrangements, security, first-aid, signage, music, insurances, accounting, liaison with police, car parking, and mailing, just to name but a few that immediately spring to mind in no particular order of importance.

None of these matters can be left to the last minute, and require a fairly accurate advance assessment of the numbers involved, together with time spent on each of them and deposits and other documentation to be arranged months before. I and the rest of the team were only prepared to make these time consuming commitments if the proposal was endorsed by sufficient numbers to make it viable. In addition, people who intended to arrive from overseas needed to arrange their flights in good time and this involved potentially large abortive costs for them if the event was subsequently called off.

So, all of these factors created a situation where we had to make a final decision whether to proceed or abandon based on the numbers on board by the end of January 2004 at the latest, and I decided that I could only make that decision based on the firm, written (i.e. serious) comittment of people supported by a payment or at least the promise of payment.  Whilst I was aware that it was likely that a significant number would leave their decision until the last minute for various reasons, I at least needed to know that by the end of January I was close to achieving the break even point of 450 ticket sales. As long as that was in the bag, it wouldn’t matter if people left it to the last minute.

However, by the end of January, we only had 140 out of the 450 ticket sales that we really needed. Although there appeared to be around 80 others who had expressed interest but hadn’t confirmed at that stage, it would have been recklessly optimistic to gamble on the fact that another 300 tickets would be sold in the following four months, given that the ones already in the bag were the ‘easy meat’. I looked at the option of switching to a smaller venue (ie just the Eliots hall) but this didn’t make a lot of difference to the overall picture. Therefore, in view of the luke-warm response, the team reluctantly agreed that we had no option other than to abandon plans for the 2004 reunion.

I know that this is extremely disappointing to the 140 that had already booked, especially those who were not able to attend the original 2000 event. However, without the critical mass of people required to make it a successful event, it would have been judged a failure and would have diminished the memory of June 2000.

In hindsight, perhaps it was a mistake to select the Saturday of a bank holiday weekend and I should have followed my original instincts to go for the following weekend and just upset the apparent hoardes of D-Day commemorators. I’m not convinced that this actually had a major effect on the outcome though and I think that in reality the reunion phenomenon has been and gone.

Those that wanted to see the old school building had their best chance in 2000 and their last chance was really this year; my understanding is that the old gym will be knocked down soon and the general refurbishment of the Eliots building throughout means that most of it will be totally different from how we remember it.

As for the future, people will still be able to make contact and arrange mini-gatherings via this site whilst what remains of the recently depleted funds permits.  If someone else wishes to take up the challenge and host a major reunion, they are welcome to borrow a copy of the ‘business plan’ that was used for the 2000 and planned 2004 events. Be warned, it could be a poisoned chalice!

Finally, I would like to thank everyone who has supported the attempt to make the 2004 event work and I’m sorry that their efforts have been in vain.

Paul Gleave
1 February 2004