Math anxiety at the Design Automation Conference

OK, just so everyone knows, I thought DAC this year was pretty good.  I met a lot of interesting people and got a pretty good handle on the state of the EDA industry (really bad but with several bright spots and hope for the future.

Then the number started coming out. 

I'm not a math whiz.  In fact, I suffered math anxiety all through school, so this stuff makes my head hurt, and I need the help of all you engineering types out there to help me figure this out.

The preliminary numbers for DAC 2009 were 5135

The final numbers reported for DAC 2008 were 4828

The preliminary numbers for DAC 2007 were "over 5100" (no definitive number was reported that I could find).

The news release from DAC July 29 said DAC 2009 was up 12 percent from 2008 and 3 percent from 2007.

So you engineers, correct me if I'm wrong.  For 2009 to be 3 percent higher than 2007, either 2007's "5100" has to be below 5100, right?  3 percent of 5100 is approximately 153, right.  That would make 2009 have to be 5250 at least.

And for 2009 to be 12 percent above 2008, the final would have to be 5406, right?

And one other question, how many people took advantage of the scholarships, and does that skew the numbers any?

Like I said, math anxiety.  Any help would be appreciated.

Comments

  1. JL GrayAugust 12, 2009 at 3:46 AM

    Lou,

    My numbers (based on a Goering piece) for DAC 2007 were 5135 registered attendees...

    My piece:

    http://www.verilab.com/blog/2007/06/denali-party-and-dac-future/

    The Goering piece:

    http://www.eetimes.com/blog/news/archives/2007/06/dac_attendance.html

    JL

    ReplyDelete
  2. www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlq70zZobwFo32C4ckOihJH7JMNTjtSN88August 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM

    Lou, take a look at Kevin Jones' article from a week ago (Aug 4) in the FPGA Journal: he is journalist not an engineer but he answers all of your questions anyway, almost as if he anticipated them:

    http://www.fpgajournal.com/articles_2009/20090804_dac.htm

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lou CoveyAugust 12, 2009 at 2:40 PM

    Ok, so you're saying 2007 was exactly the same as 2009, minus exhibition personnel?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lou CoveyAugust 12, 2009 at 2:45 PM

    Thanks for the heads up. I missed that, but think you mean Kevin Morris and just so you know, Kevin was an established engineer long before he took up the journalism gig a few years ago and has worked in FPGA, ASIC, and PCB design and verification at Mentor Graphics, Exemplar Logic, Tektronix, and VR Information Systems. He holds an EE degree from the University of Texas at Austin.
    Very few of the journalists covering EDA lack engineering degrees and significant engineering experience.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Grant MartinAugust 13, 2009 at 2:35 AM

    One problem with all the analyses may partly lie in comparing preliminary numbers with final numbers. My understanding is that preliminary numbers reflect pre-registrations (for exhibits only or full conference), and that final numbers will reflect those who actually showed up to pick up their badge (if you register for a free exhibit-only pass, of course you might decide on the day not to go; and pre-registrations will not count in those who come on the spur of the moment). It is more reasonable to compare preliminary vs. preliminary or final vs. final numbers to look for trends - as I discussed in http://www.chipdesignmag.com/martins/2009/07/30/dac-2009-wrapup-dac-by-numbers/

    None of this analysis is helped by DAC's coyness with its numbers. Finding the final attendance numbers via say a google search is extremely hard, if not downright impossible (trawling through press releases). You can find the "preliminary" numbers going back several years again by trawling press release archive sites. But unless it is well hidden, DAC does not archive its old press releases on its web site and does not have any comparative attendance figures on its web site. In the interests of transparency, I think they should have this kind of information easily accessible on their own web site. People want to know and analyse, and in the absence of the full information, will make do with what they can find.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Who is listening to you? You might be surprised

Image
That takes some effort to listen and be aware of what the opportunities actually are but if you ignore them you do so at at your own peril. Throughout my career as a professional communicator I come across clients who are absolutely sure they know who their audience is. Invariably they are wrong.Let me give you an example. Many years ago I counseled a semiconductor company that had a great business selling components to Apple for the iPod. They sold almost 30 percent of all their product to Apple. They knew that Apple was never going away. In our research into the effectiveness of their content we found what seemed to be a discrepancy. We knew that there were multiple product groups that the client’s technology would fit, but they were focused only on the iPod team. We told them they needed to start a focus on development teams. They responded, “We know who to talk to, you just concentrate on putting out press releases.” Six months later, at a trade show, two Apple team managers came ...
Read more

Why you don't (or do) like social media, Part Three

Image
When you boil down attitudes toward and execution of social media practices, it's all about leadership.  Real leadership, not the popular definition that rises from the horrific misinterpretation  of Geoffrey Moore's book, Crossing the Chasm .  Let me explain that reference a bit more in depth first. Moore stated fairly simply that for a technology company to be successful, it must attain the perception of leadership in a market niche.  The misinterpretation of that concept is what screws up the marketing for so many companies.  Moore's statement was an indicator of success and a strategy, not a tactic.  If you are the perceived market niche leader, Moore explains, THEN you know you successfully crossed the chasm.  Therefore your marketing strategy must revolve around developing the perception of leadership.  However, most companies believe that saying you are a leader in your marketing documents, even when you are clearl...
Read more

Sharing is a thing, but it isn’t the only thing.

Image
I received a few emails from a content services vendor this week (Here’s a suggestion…did you get my email… have you read my email…) and after getting over the initial annoyance of a rookie PR gaffe I decided to look into the suggestion while I made coffee. My response is this blog post. The vendor was Venngage which has a nifty online tool for creating infographics for distribution on digital media, and competes with dozens of similar online tools. The offer was a very long white paper on engagement that, to their credit, had no blatant push to buy their service, but it wasn’t completely subtle. The premise of the white paper is “content that people share is a good thing.” In fact, if anyone from Venngage sends you the link to the paper, I just saved you a who lot of time because you don’t have to read it now. That is all it says, but with lots of statistics before they get to the point. It’s true that a metric of content engagement is, in fact, how many people in your audience share...
Read more