Re: [Debconf-team] Some thoughts on sponsorship tiers, and perhaps one improvement.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin <gaudenz@debian.org> wrote:
> Raphaël Walther <raphael.walther@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi there,
>> On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 08:01:04PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 04:28:53PM -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Margarita Manterola
>>> > > Also, there's 9 months till DC13, I would support this being applied
>>> > > for DC13 sponsors as well.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks Marga. The issue is that many sponsors and potential sponsors
>>> > have already been sent the sponsors brochure which doesn't mention
>>> > this. If we were to make any changes, I do think that we would have to
>>> > contact them again with an updated brochure and explain the changes,
>>> > and allow them to adjust their sponsorship commitments.
>>>
>>> Updating the brochure after the fact might make a weird impression, but
>>> you could follow-up with the proposal for small companies which either
>>> have not replied yet, have declined to sponsor at all or are eligble for
>>> an upgrade due to the pledged amount (in case the sponsorship team /
>>> debconf team / whoever decides to go with it).
>>
>> I am really against changing the level and the brochure for dc13 now. We
>> had a very long discussion a couple of month ago regarding sponsorship level.
>> Then, we decided to make that campaign with that level.
Well it isn't unprecedented to make changes as we go along. In May
2011 we increased the already agreed upon sponsorship levels for DC11.
However, I consider whether or not these changes would go into place
for DC13, a separate question from whether we should consider these
changes at all. In an effort to streamline the discussion, I'd ask
that we table the question of whether or not to make changes for DC13
levels until we can reach a consensus on whether or not to make these
changes at all.
> I agree with Raphael on this. I also mentioned on IRC that at least the
> silver sponsor we currently have is also just a small business with
> around 25 employees. So it's certainly not true for all these business
> that the sponsor levels are too high.
Hmm, perhaps change the numbers from from my initial proposal to:
1) up to 10 employees = 50%
2) up to 25 = 25%
3) up to 50 = 10%?
(I am getting these numbers from the EU definition of SMEs found in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_and_medium_enterprises)
> Another point to keep in mind is that IMO we should not focus too much
> on small sponsorship amounts. While it's true that a lot of small
> amounts also give some money, DebConf becomes financially viable mainly
> because of the Platinum and Gold sponsors. We already need a lot of
> bronze sponsors to make up for one Platinum and with the proposed
> discounts we even need more. On the other hand the work the sponsors
> team has dealing with a bronze sponsor compared with a platinum sponsor
> is mostly equal.
Looking at the past few years, we don't have a deluge of folks lining
up to be Platinum (or even Gold). That said, my proposal does not
impact or dilute the donations of Platinum or Gold sponsors, and just
lowers the bar for smaller companies to become Debian sponsors in the
lower tiers, without impacting larger organizations. From my sense the
bulk of the work is making initial contact with potential sponsors,
and yes contacting sponsors of any potential level is about the same,
but feel that if these changes increased our conversion rates, by even
a relatively small percentage, it has the potential to increase our
revenue. And yes, even if we made these changes, I don't think it
should change whatever our priorities are at that time. If
sponsors-team feels they need to focus on large sponsors, these
changes don't change that focus. However, if you are saying that we
need to create a barrier to keep from being bothered by small sponsors
only wanting to give 1000-3000 CHF, I don't know if I can agree.
I want to make clear, that to be fair to larger sponsors, wherever we
feature sponsors, they will still be ranked first by monetary
contribution, so those larger orgs that give the the minimum
contribution for a given tier, would be featured in a higher position
than smaller donations in the same tier. e.g. - a 6 000 CHF
contribution would rank higher than a 3 000 CHF contribution in the
silver tier.
I guess the questions at the end of the day are:
1) What is the fairest and most progressive approach here?
2) What is likely to provide the largest most stable base of
sponsorship revenue? (I suspect having more sponsors giving somewhat
less but doing so year after year, is more beneficial than having a
handful of sponsors each giving more.)
3) Would these changes overall increase revenue, keep revenue the
same, or lower revenue?
I'll also add that these changes I am proposing are less geared to
local sponsors, but rather sponsors that hopefully would be
contributing year after year.
-Brian
> Gaudenz
>
> --
> Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
> Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
> ~ Samuel Beckett ~
> _______________________________________________
> Debconf-team mailing list
> Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
Reply to: