On 2012-12-10 09:39, Philipp Hug wrote:
I mentioned this before on IRC before. In case we'd go for a reduced price for SME, I'd prefer to keep it simple. (e.g. only create one reduced rate and not three)
That sounds more sensible to me, yes.For this discussion with respect to recurring sponsors, also consider what happens when a company gets one more employee and crosses the defined boundary, and whether they will be happy to give the appropriate significant jump in sponsorship payments the next year (or indeed that year, if it's early enough). Most companies don't only have employees on full-time contracts, but a mixture of full-time and part-time employees, and consultants; how are the suggested numbers meant to work with this? (It is probably not sensible to require that we conduct a detailed employee census before letting a firm sponsor!)
changes don't change that focus. However, if you are saying that weneed to create a barrier to keep from being bothered by small sponsorsonly wanting to give 1000-3000 CHF, I don't know if I can agree.I think there's currently a missing level for those willing to give more than 2000 but less than 6000. Maybe for next year we could introduce the steel level again: e.g. <CHF 1000 Supporter, <CHF 4000 Steel, <6000 Bronze
Please also check previous discussions (which probably means, consult previous fundraising team people) about the previous feeling from sponsors and team that the levels were too complex, to make sure we don't just iterate back and forth but improve. :) Checking what other successful events do is also sensible, but bear in mind that it is acceptable to have more complexity in a larger deal with more benefits -- for e.g. big sports events, lots of negotiators and lawyers will be involved, but we want to make it easy for organisations to agree sponsorship without having to think too hard.
-- Moray