Comment Permalink

If I get it right, your thoughts are how do we mitigate costs, limit logistics and provide better access to major organisations and funders.

I'm excited about and supportive of how AVA has developed regional conferences. I attended the Asia AVA and noticed that numerous funders from other parts of the world were in attendance as well as staff from major organisations. I think the regional events provide a number of other pluses that AVA Africa pretty much say themselves.

By hosting this event on the continent, we can:

Bring together a larger, more diverse group of advocates from the region.

Address logistical and cost barriers such as visa challenges and travel expenses.

Facilitate better-informed and regionally relevant interventions for farmed animals.

Many funders I've spoken to have a genuine interest in supporting and growing animal protection work in other parts of the world and I can imagine that their attendance will continue and probably grow at these regional events. I also see potential, that these regional events, might inspire future funders in each region, something I see as important as we continue to grow this work.

I can see that LA might not be the best place if we are looking at a global event, concerns about the scholarship progress and your burning desire to do great things for animals. I also think that the addition of the regional conferences is a fantastic step in improving accessibility for organisations to meet, co-create, build community and fundraise.

***

In your post and subsequent comments I sense dissatisfaction with the scholarship process and that your primary goal of attending AVA US is to access funders. I realise you are posting from an anonymous account, so maybe you already do this, but if not. Post about the work your organisation is doing here and on FAST. I'm sure people would love to hear about it. If you haven't presented at a regional AVA summit or a conference like CARE I think might be a great thing to do.

See in context

The Reality of Holding an Ava Summit in Los Angeles: Is it really necessary?

by SadMouse

Feb 272 min read 6

36

Animal welfareBuilding effective altruismCommunityEvent strategyOpinion

Frontpage

Today, I want to reflect on the cost of holding an AVA Summit in Los Angeles. While it's true that there are now alternatives in other regions of the world, such as LATAM and Asia, the United States remains the epicenter where the largest number of funders and major organizations gather.

However, is it really necessary to organize an event of this scale in such an expensive location? The Marriott Hotel in Los Angeles, situated in one of the most expensive cities in the world, not only represents a huge investment in terms of accommodation and logistics, but it also creates an economic barrier for many nonprofit foundations and NGOs that have the potential to make a difference but lack the resources to attend.

Let’s break it down: the entry ticket costs $400 per person, accommodation is similarly priced, and flights can easily exceed $500, especially for those traveling from outside the U.S. The total expenses can quickly add up, making it even more difficult for organizations with limited budgets to attend.

From my perspective, holding an event in such an exclusive city doesn't necessarily guarantee better networking opportunities or more funding. The content, the work that foundations and NGOs do, and the causes they support are what truly attract funders and large organizations, not the location or the luxury of a hotel. Moreover, focusing on such an expensive space could divert attention from the central purpose: connecting ideas and people, not just places.

I still haven't found anyone who has been funded with a scholarship this year, except for people who, despite having the means to attend on their own, still requested the scholarship. Additionally, the emails specify that scholarships are very limited.
This is an anonymous message because I fear being blacklisted from events, but my organization, which works tirelessly for animals every day, really needs it. We are committed to real, effective work, but as an organization from a less-resourced country, the cost of attending such an event can be unaffordable.

Of course, I understand what Los Angeles represents in terms of attracting funders, but I'm sure there are less luxurious locations where the event could be held, and at the same time, a strong network with funders could allow for more efficient ways to schedule meetings with them.

What do you think? Should events like these be more accessible for organizations? 💬👇

36 Reactions

Comments6

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 11:24 PM

Nithin Ravi🔸Feb 2711

It's certainly a problem that AVA LA is inaccessible for organizations operating in LMIC's. We're navigating some unfortunate tradeoffs here primarily because of wealth inequality in the world (something that is far outside the scope of animal advocacy to fix). I think funders are far more likely to come to a US based conference as most funders are US (and to a lesser extent Europe) based.

A couple questions I have:

Do you have suggestions for alternative cities that are both accessible to funders (primarily based in the US and to a lesser extent Europe) and cheaper? Mexico City, some Texan cities, etc.. come to mind but still face tradeoffs.
- I do think Reducetarian faces some of these tradeoffs a little better by being in slightly cheaper cities.
What is the benefit of coming to AVA that your organization is missing (i.e. are you primarily seeking funding, connections, etc...)?

SadMouseFeb 274

If an organization in Asia or Latin America receives funding from ACE (approximately $30,000 per year), it is unrealistic to expect them to afford a conference that requires at least $2,000–$3,000 in total expenses (registration, flights, accommodation, food, etc.). The opportunity cost is huge—this money could be directly invested in impactful projects rather than covering travel expenses. While Los Angeles may seem attractive due to its proximity to funders, this does not justify the excessive costs, especially when meetings with funders could be pre-arranged online or through smaller, more accessible gatherings. Scholarships, while helpful, are limited and tend to favor organizations already based in the U.S. or Europe or individuals with strong English and networking skills, which does not always correlate with real impact. A better approach would be to establish a more transparent selection process for scholarships and redirect funds toward on-the-ground work. A $30,000-a-year organization that wants to take the next step needs to attend AVA USA, as things currently work, to access funders of a higher caliber and open new opportunities.

Mexico City would be a much better alternative, as it is well-connected, significantly more affordable, and still accessible to North American funders. The issue is not just financial but structural—conferences should serve the movement, not just those who can afford them. High-impact organizations should not have to spend the equivalent of a month’s worth of funding just to access funders, when these conversations could happen online or in more accessible locations. It is also important to highlight that just the entrance fee for AVA costs $480.

Profile2024Feb 283

I have sympathy for this. But to be honest, I also think it's completely legitimate and acceptable to have a big animal advocacy conference in the USA every year.

Unfortunately, I suspect that moving the main AVA summit to Mexico City, or anywhere outside the US, would lead to fewer people coming to it, and less overall impact for animals.

It seems like AVA has actually made a really big and concerted effort to try to spread globally, and are running conferences in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. This must take them a huge amount of effort, and it's clear that most conference organizers in other sectors don't make anywhere near this degree of effort to be globally inclusive. This is way, way above and beyond what other conferences usually do, and I think deserves kudos.

I'm from a wealthy country in Western Europe, and the AVA trip is even expensive for me. It must be even more extreme for people from other parts of the world, and I do sympathize with this. But I don't really see much of an alternative. I think the main driver here is simply that the dollar is strong and the US is really expensive.

$480 for a 3-day conference is certainly not cheap, but from what I hear, compared to other conferences in other sectors and certainly in the private sector, this is actually incredibly low-priced. Organising conferences and hosting them is just really expensive.

Trying to be constructive and brainstorm cities in the US that might be a bit cheaper: One random ideas could be to look at Miami, as this has direct flights from Europe and Latin America, and I think from a cursory glance might be cheaper than LA, the Bay Area or New York. Or perhaps Atlanta, which I think is an airport hub for Delta, or Denver, airline hub for the United Airlines. Though I have a feeling that this might not end up reducing costs by too much, and would be a big effort for a lot of US-based people to come to. So I think keeping it in the main hubs on the East or West Coast has got a real logic to it...

I haven't looked into conference organizing myself, but it does seem like there might be cheaper accommodation and venue options than major hotel chains. Perhaps there are some 'random', more independent places. Though I suspect those wouldn't be in the center of major cities, which would complicate logistics further for everyone.

Overall, I want to express quite a lot of sympathy for the organizers of AVA who are trying their best and working hard. It really feels like the driver of this issue is largely the fact that the US is an expensive place to get to, and an expensive place to be for people who aren't earning in US dollars. This sucks, but I suppose the silver lining is that it means that when U.S. donors give to the animal advocacy movement, their money can go really, really far when it is spent overseas - even in Europe and even more so in other parts of the world. Overall, I think that optimizing for keeping major (and minor) US donors involved is a huge win for our movement, and if this means having big conferences in the US (which is totally reasonable) I think this is actually a fair trade-off. I do, of course, though, sympathize with the original poster and other people who are in a similar position.

(As an aside, I think I noticed somewhere that there was some discussion of whether AVA should do a conference in Europe. I know this is a bit off-topic. I would perhaps be a bit skeptical of this given that there is already the Luxembourg and CARE conferences every year as well as country-specific ones like VARC in the UK. I'm not sure that Europe really needs three key animal rights/welfare conferences every year(?) But maybe there is a good argument in favor of it...)

SadMouseFeb 281

I understand what you're saying, and to some extent, I agree with you. Regarding AVA and the effort involved: I would never doubt it, and we must also remember that it has become a job for that team—they receive salaries and execute it. It’s not a volunteer initiative. I’d say it’s a business with very good intentions and highly altruistic.

Since it’s a private initiative, of course, demanding things is a luxury because no one is obligated to take feedback. Perhaps the solution is to lower the costs of the luxurious hotel (choosing a more standard one) and be more transparent with the scholarships. At least in my country, they have awarded a scholarship to someone who can undoubtedly afford it, which suggests that they are being assigned randomly, superficially, or based on friendships.

Again, this is just an assumption, since without public data, it’s impossible to know. And I emphasize, I understand that no one is obligated to make that information public either.

Non-zero-sum JamesFeb 271

Agreed, creating this sort of selection pressure against foundations less able or less willing to fork out for expensive conferences is likely to bias the conclusions of summit (potentially in exactly the wrong direction)—this gets exacerbated if scholarships are snapped up by unscrupulous organisations.

ASuchyMar 11

If I get it right, your thoughts are how do we mitigate costs, limit logistics and provide better access to major organisations and funders.

By hosting this event on the continent, we can:

Bring together a larger, more diverse group of advocates from the region.

Address logistical and cost barriers such as visa challenges and travel expenses.

Facilitate better-informed and regionally relevant interventions for farmed animals.

***