Re: [Debconf-team] Sponsorship brochure for DebConf11 - help?
@Damyan,
> Thanks for keeping this rolling.
:)
> Hm, my feeling was the opposite. Take the DC10 broshure, replace the
> parts that talk about NYC, reset the sponsorship levels, optionally
> re-do some of the artwork and you are done.
Well, thing is, we need to kind of brochures, the ones for
international market, and one for local market. Besides just
translating these two, there should probably be difference in numbers.
That's my opinion.
> Was the broshure ready that early before? SVN logs suggests that DC10
> brochure started being prepared in January, with corrections up to
> May. DC9 seems to be done in March. So I think your timing is very
> good compared to previous conferences.
Very good, it's good to know this, it seems like we can/and will have
this brochure ready in begining of January after all.
@Vedran,
> PS: Plan is to lower the amount of costs for each package, due to the
> problems discussed on irc. Since, we're in Europe, we'll use euros and
> we'll lower the amount by 20%-30%.
> Any other suggestions are welcome!
Who discussed what problems? May I please get log to this discussion?
One more thing, decisions that are crucial like this one, will NOT be
concluded just like that. So before making these kind of decisions are
made, I want to be aware of what's going on.
@Brian,
> Looking at it from a sponsor's point of view, raising the donation
> threshold would raise questions, where lowering it really won't, but
> might raise questions later if we decide we need to raise them again.
> I also think that repeat sponsors are prepared to sponsor to the same
> "level" and will just pay what that price is. So if a bronze sponsor
> from 2010 paid $2k, charging any less would leave money on the table.
> Basically I think consistency and predictability to sponsors is a good
> thing. Obviously the fact that we change currencies for the thresholds
> doesn't help, but trying our best to do so is all that really can be
> expected.
Well, yes threshold itself is an interesting topic, for example we
might have a situation where one sponsor wants to be a full sponsor,
along with Goverment something as a "friend" (bosnian term) of
conference, or co-main/general-sponsor?
Hypothetical situation, we you have three telecoms for example, every
single of one wants to be sponsor, have the "all-inclusive" package we
have. But every single of them, wants to eliminate other two telecoms
from being on sponsors list. So what do you do in that situation? All
three will get most expensive packages, but if only one wants to
appear and thus eliminating the other two, then this price could go
thriple the price of the most expensive package, or no?
What I told Canonical is not to exclude us, but rather keep us in mind
in events they would like to sponsor next year and that I'll
personally make sure they get brochure once we have one ready. And on
top of it that there shouldn't be much deviation in the numbers from
all other DebConfs.
When I sent this email I expected from prvious DebConf's from Spain or
perhaps even Edinburgh could tell me how they "converted" currencies
from previous DebConf's and so on.
Another thing we have here is, besides the "regular" brochure,
brochure for the local market, that is Balkans, European or American
prices don't work with prices here.
So regarding all this, thing I would like the most is to hear it from
someone from DebConf9 or DebConf7 sponsorship team regarding this one.
@Holger,
> I _assume_ the low(er) amounts are due to two things: a.) the government
> sponsorship this year and b.) to make it "easier" for local companies to
> reach higher sponsor levels.
I would rather not want to assume anything and get a solid material
(log) how and who came up with this idea.
But if I have to assume things that would be my assumption as well.
> (Assuming this is right) we _could_ probably introduce different levels for
> local companies, but I'm not sure this is a good idea.
Out of curiousity, why not?
Adnan
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Freitag, 17. Dezember 2010, Brian Gupta wrote:
>> Looking at it from a sponsor's point of view, raising the donation
>> threshold would raise questions, where lowering it really won't, but
>> might raise questions later if we decide we need to raise them again.
>
> which will likely happen, when we get less government sponsorship next time.
>
>> I also think that repeat sponsors are prepared to sponsor to the same
>> "level" and will just pay what that price is. So if a bronze sponsor
>> from 2010 paid $2k, charging any less would leave money on the table.
>> Basically I think consistency and predictability to sponsors is a good
>> thing.
>
> I tend to agree with this.
>
> I _assume_ the low(er) amounts are due to two things: a.) the government
> sponsorship this year and b.) to make it "easier" for local companies to
> reach higher sponsor levels.
>
> (Assuming this is right) we _could_ probably introduce different levels for
> local companies, but I'm not sure this is a good idea.
>
>
> cheers,
> Holger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debconf-team mailing list
> Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
>
>
Reply to: