Re: [Debconf-team] Sponsorship tiers/benefits for DC15?
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:34 AM, martin f krafft <madduck@debconf.org> wrote:
> Dear Brian,
>
> thanks for getting the ball rolling on this. There are multiple
> points in your e-mail and I shall try to address them individually.
> If there are replies, it might make sense to split the points into
> different messages an amend the subject.
>
> 1. The idea to contact those potential DC14 sponsors whom you've
> approached too late is really good. Do you have a list of
> contacts you could send to me in private?
I'd suggest you rejoin sponsors-team, and let's review. (There aren't
actually all that many.) DC14 fundraising efforts also need help now,
I'd rather see if there is a way we might collaborate on that now, and
look towards DC15 in the May/June/July timeframe. (It's probably too
early for talking to DC15 sponsorship leads just yet.)
In any case to begin reaching out for DC15 you'll likely want two things:
1) Finalize the tiers (which we are working now)
2) A sponsorship brochure. (Typically the venue/location will be
listed, I don't know how soon you plan to get the final decision
made.)
> 2. I am not sure that sponsorshop tiers should stay constant. The
> reason is that budgets also don't stay constant and fixing
> exchange rates does not solve this -- it opens a different box of
> Pandora.
I would say that *IF* there are significant changes in tiers and we
get those changes pushed out to former sponsors at least 6 months
before year end (of prior year), it is not such a big deal.
(historically speaking, this would be super early to the point we're
talking slightly prior to the previous conference.)
When we surprise sponsors with big changes that are too late for them
to adjust their budgets, that I have bigger worries about.
> 3. In fact, I think every DebConf should be run independently and
> there should not be a definition of tier levels in USD, to which
> sponsors and organisers have to adapt.
You're probably right. If we ever moved to unified Debian sponsorship,
a single currency for Debian sponsorship might be something to
revisit. (e.g. - Linux foundation funding model).
> 4. While there is a bit of charm in the idea of awarding platinum
> sponsorship at different levels based on country of origin (and
> economical strength), I think this would be too hard to carve
> out.
Yes especially for multinationals.
> Instead, I think that tier levels should be dependent on budget,
> i.e. we should look at previous DebConfs for data like "1
> platinum, 2 gold, 4 silver", etc... and then divide the budget
> total by the average of those counts to get the level needed. And
> then we round up.
In the future, I believe our budget should be dependent on revenue.
However, right now, our revenue chases the budget, and then when we
see how we do, the budget gets adjusted. If we had recurring
predictable income, budgeting based on expected income would make the
lives of bid teams a lot easier. (By starting fundraising earlier, we
move towards this. More on this in a bit.)
> 5. This does not mean that we shouldn't engage with potential
> sponsors in deals such as "gold for the next 5 years for
> $12,000/year" and never downgrade them below gold (though they
> might receive an upgrade in a year with a very cheap conference).
I've also observed that in recent years (since I've been involved)
tiers have only gone up or stayed the same year over year. I don't
recall having seen sponsors getting more for less, year over year.
I'll also add I think you overestimate the level of discourse we have
with our sponsors. I hope to change this overtime, but the fact is
there is just too much turnover on the sponsors-team to really develop
these kinds of relationships that would allow these conversations to
take place.
> 6. There should be no currency risk if we receive e.g. $60k for the
> next five years and invest it for interest. This is currently
> hard because the central banks are flooding the markets still,
> but in theory, exchange rate changes should be balanced out with
> changes in the respective interest rates. Of course, we don't
> have an actual treasury to take care of risk management here...
We also don't have so much money that this is a big issue.
> 7. Based on your numbers and our very roughly projected budget, I'd
> consider the following levels approriate in Euros: Platinum: 20k,
> Gold: 10k, Silver: 5k, Bronze: 1.5k. RFC.
I think for bronze the difference is small enough that we can consider
it basically the same. I'd say for Platinum it probably doesn't matter
and you can set it to whatever you want, as at least in recent history
Platinum sponsors haven't been repeat platinum sponsors. To be
specific, looking at DC10-DC14, at no point has a platinum sponsor in
one year come back as platinum sponsor in any of the following years.
I don't know if this means the level is too high, or the benefit of
being a platinum sponsor is not perceived as high enough. (The data
may be a little skewed, since many were local gov't type sponsors, but
overall the impression I get is that we don't attract enough platinum
sponsors.)
As an aside, it's quite possible that we won't have any platinum
sponsors for DC14. (Something else we need to think about.)
> 8. I think we should aim high and be ready to be flexible about
> sponsorship tiers. For instance, A might have bought Platinum for
> 22k but B says they can only give 20k, but they will only do it
> for Platinum. Now a deal could be cut according to which e.g.
> B enables employees to work on something for DebConf, or prints
> stuff for us, or handles bags etc., so that they pay 20k and
> some labour on top. Since we don't have to disclose numbers,
> A would also not need to find out.
>
> Alternatively, we could ask A in this case whether they would be
> okay with B getting Platinum for less, whether they want their
> money back, or whether we can find another perk to justify their
> additional expense.
Since I've been a member of the sponsors-team, the practice for
counting the monetary value of in-kind donations, is only done for
things that we would otherwise need and have to pay for with our cash.
I agree with this policy.
Also, and this is probably controversial, but clearly necessary... but
labor for Debian, that would otherwise be done by volunteers, never
counts as sponsorship. Any large tech company that hires DDs, would
then basically be a sponsor, when in fact there is clearly an
employer/employee relationship that the employer gets material benefit
from. There would be a huge "disturbance in the force" if Debian
started recognizing employers of Debian contributors as "sponsors". I
feel very strongly that we (Debconf-team) must not tamper with this
without having a project-wide discussion, that I suspect will reinforce the
status quo.
The test needs to simply remain: "is this an expense DebConf typically
pays for, and if this donation were not to occur would DebConf pay for
it?"
It's also highly unlikely that an org would tell us that they want to
give us 22k when they only have 20k. (We'd likely never know, and
they'd probably just figure out how to pay 22k, or offer us the next
level down.) As I mentioned earlier, as of yet, we don't really have
enough continuity on the sponsors-team to have the kind of
relationships that would allow such conversations to take place.
> 9. One thing I am missing in the sponsorship tiers are free
> conference tickets, including potentially free participation in
> a special dinner event. I know this goes against the inclusive
> philosophy of DebConf, but we are dealing with sponsors here and
> we might just have to put ourselves aside for a minute. I am
> alluding to the LCA speakers dinner, which is a great perk for
> sponsors: they get treated to nice dinner and exclusive access to
> the speakers for that evening. We don't make such hoohaa about
> prominence of our speakers, but we could easily organise a fancy
> dinner e.g. for our Silver+ sponsors, who get to enjoy catered
> food in the presence of e.g. the organisers, the DPL, and
> a handful of prominent DebConf attendees to make the sponsors
> feel special.
I suspect we need to avoid this, as it seems very much out of
character for Debian or DebConf. I'll also add the majority of the
people writing/signing the checks, don't actually attend DebConf, so
it would be of limited use, even if did otherwise make sense.
Assuming we bring back professional and corporate fees. (Which brought
in a total of $7200 for DC13), we could waive a certain number of
these fees for the larger contributors, but we had this discussion
before and decided against it. IE: I had suggested this for DC14, but
it was argued against, as it was considered an unnecessary loss of
income, that wouldn't be valued by sponsors enough to justify the loss
in income. (tickets come out of a different pot of money than
sponsorship). I see both sides, but lean towards not offering them as
a perk, at this time.
> 10. All this said, I would like to pick up the ball you started
> rolling for DC15 and approach sponsors ASAP, even before DC14
> takes place. Then, sponsors can inform themselves ahead of time,
> ask questions, maybe even send people, and generally make a much
> more informed decision about sponsoring DC15.
All in all I do like this idea, however, let's make sure time/effort
is being properly directed. IE: DC14 is less than 6 months out, and
additional help here is very much needed.
Perhaps when we sync up to discuss DC15 fundraising efforts, we can
also go over the status for dc14. (Basically: the long and short is
that we have $59k of committed sponsorship funds towards a currently
budgeted sponsorship goal of $158k, and we have less than 6 months to
go, and not enough realistic leads to close the gap.
We'll need to:
a) increase the effectiveness of our fundraising (At this point we
need to identify and reach out to a lot more sponsors.)
b) make some budgetary adjustments (I don't believe we will make the
targets, without lowering them.)
c) look to see where we can get additional funds, so we don't cut too
deeply, and/or unwisely. (After doing a thorough review of where we
can cut, and what we can do to raise revenue, perhaps ask DPL for
help.)
With the DC14 effort still ongoing, and needing help, we absolutely
need to make sure these sponsors that you are thinking about reaching
out to early aren't potential sponsors for DC14 before talking to them
about DC15.
Thanks,
Brian
> --
> .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org>
> : :' : DebConf orga team
> `. `'`
> `- DebConf14: Portland, OR, USA: http://debconf14.debconf.org
>
> "however jewel-like the good will may be in its own right, there is
> a morally significant difference between rescuing someone from
> a burning building and dropping him from a twelfth-storey window
> while trying to rescue him."
> -- thomas nagel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debconf-team mailing list
> Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
>
Reply to: