also sprach Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> [2014-08-17 22:19 +0200]:
> The trick though is mapping this to levels. Historically in-kind
> donations need to be for things that we likely would have gotten
> for the conference anyway, and paid for out of general DC funds.
If nobody sponsors the conf dinner, we will find a way to do it with
DC funds (I already know how it could be done).
The idea here is that it's a perk for sponsors to get more
visibility, so if they do it in addition to contributing to general
DC funds, all the better.
> Also it's tricky sometimes (but not always) to value
> these in kind donations. (Best I can say is try to figure out how much
> it would have cost us to pay for said item and credit them that amount.)
Pricing… well, certainly it should be at least the amount it costs.
But there is no reason to specify an arbitrary amount that is what
we believe it would/could be worth to sponsors.
Also, things like naming the talk rooms could even be auctioned off…
> I strong feel this is likely to be risky, (from my experiences
> organizing many different free software events outside of Debian).
> Basically once you give a sponsor "the mic" you have little
> control of what they say and how long they say it. (Even if you
> give them strict guidelines.)
I believe this just needs to be properly communicated. If, for
instance, I introduce the sponsor and say "No worries, we are not
keeping you from eating. But tonight we owe to ACME. They wanted to
say a sentence about why they are doing this, and then kick off the
food intake" (and the sponsor knows that "a few words" is the deal),
then I believe it would be detrimental to them to screw this up.
> The thing is, is that it seems you're looking at this as
> a potential sponsor perk, that would presumably yield something of
> commercial value to the sponsor. I suspect most "few words" said
> by sponsors that have commercial value to the sponsors, would be
> considered a bit intrusive by attendees. (DebConf, from what
> I understand, shields attendees from the typical commercialism
> found at most large conferences.)
To be honest: yes, I know these are the expectations we have always
fostered. But I have two things to say to this:
1. there are times when this aspect of the conference makes e.g.
budgeting and books harder than they should be, and while the
goal is laudable, we should not shy away from re-evaluating it
regularly.
2. If there's a room filled with 300 geeks who are about to be
treated to a nice meal for free because someone appreciates their
work and wanted to tell them by sponsoring this dinner, then
quite frankly, I think that something that might be considered "a
bit intrusive" presumably by a subset of attendees might still be
worth pulling off, expecting those attendees to just suck it up.
Obviously, we are not talking about a sales pitch, 30 minute
auto-biography, or a showcase of how great they are; but even if
it were to take 3 minutes, I would think this wouldn't be too
much to ask from our attendees.
> Job fair: No strong feeling pro/con. If we do it, I don't know if
> setting the limit at silver makes sense. IE: I'd probably think
> bronze should be allowed to participate as well.
Ok. We could also broaden it later.
> The real question is whether
> conference attendees would come. IE: I'd gauge attendee interest
> before deciding to do this, because it would be weird to throw a job
> fair and have no job seekers show up. (I've seen it happen before, it's
> super awkward.)
Yeah, and then the experiment has failed. Sure, gauging beforehand
is good, except the sponsors I've talked to themselves don't know
yet whether they'll be looking to hire a year from now. Most
attendees won't know that either.
> Lottery prizes: No objection. Try to figure out logistics before
> committing to offering it to sponsors, as it seems a lot of work.
The lottery itself is not, been there, done that. The real question
is whether we want to try to get attendees to get up for these
sessions. At LCA, they are quite powerful, giving you a sense of
motion and business and energy right at the start of each day — and
the prospect of having your name called out without you being there
to receive e.g. a laptop has made me get up after only a few
hundred minutes of sleep.
And this brings up a broader question: is DebConf about
(progressively) late(r) night sessions, or do we also value the
talks presentation. At LCA, the talks are the true asset, and this
has never been such a priority for DebConf. But we would like to
continue down the path of DC14: less talks, higher quality, more
time to hack/unconference in between. And then, it might make sense
to start trying to create a motivation for people to be at the first
event at 9:45, and the first talk at 10:00…
> Lecture and meeting room naming: Seems a bit overly commercial. If
> you feel strongly about it, let's discuss further.
I have no strong feelings. To me, it seems like a low-hanging fruit.
I can imagine sponsors paying a few hundred Euros for this perk, at
a miniscule cost. And with cost, of course I mean attendee
annoyance. Sure, there'll be jokes and stuff, but does it really
change the conference?
> Attendee travel, room & board: Tricky. I'd argue this is probably
> doesn't work, and we risk companies, saying I'm going to sponsor
> the three DDs that work for my company. IE: We can not have
> companies that pay to have their employees attend try to have
> that expenditure count as tiered sponsorship.
Yeah, I am not sold on this point myself.
> DebCamp hack days: I have no strong opinion.
(same as naming the rooms, really…)
> Network infrastructure: This makes sense if an ISP is giving us
> in-kind donation. I, however wouldn't seek out a cash donation for
> this, and would steer the cash to a general debconf sponsorship.
This is also a point I am not convinced about. Listing it would
mean, however, that we might just get a sponsor to contact us, and
then we can negotiate.
> Overall, I have one question. As a fundraiser, I greatly prefer
> sponsors give non-earmarked donations. (Money that doesn't go to
> a specific part of the conference.) I wouldn't really want to
> incentivise non-earmarked donations too much.
Yes, I agree. The important thing here is twofold:
First, these perks are *in addition* to the levels and we should try
to make ends meet with regular sponsorship.
But if a sponsor choses to *also* pay the conf dinner directly, then
it means for us that it'll be easier in terms of tax, and that this
part of the conference can be removed from the budget — you know
what I mean.
And this also means that if a sponsor rather goes Silver than Gold
and also pays for the day trip, then the net effect on our budget
from the "sponsor degradation" won't really have much of an effect.
> How do you propose recognizing coffee/hack/snacks sponsors in the
> overall tiering thing. Historically we've been trying to map them
> to tiers, by calculating their in kind value, but I'm starting to
> think there may be a better way.
Let's say coffee for a week costs us 700 EUR. A sponsor can pay us
1000 EUR and we can print logos on the mugs/cups. And hang up
a banner. And drink a cup of coffee during every morning's lottery
session, thanking them ;)
> It's kind of messy, so I'm not 100% sure of the correct answer.
> Personally, I'd prefer if we downplayed this oddball
> opportunities, because they make the life of those on sponsors
> team harder. IE: Just give us a check, thank you very much!!
Well, I don't think life will become that much harder, but sure,
we'll deal with sponsors more than before. However, we have to
organise e.g. the day trip too, and us presenting the ideas to the
sponsor and asking them how much money they want to spend is
actually a nice way of possibly extending the quality, no? ;)
> I have no strong opinion here, since my understanding is Debian
> Day is considered optional, so I think you have plenty of leeway
> to do what you want. (Not sure what this had to do with sponsor
> perks though).
Nothing. It's just in the brochure to describe our conference.
> You've only allocated 10 spots in the draft. I'd guess there are
> at least 20-40+ people involved in organizing DebConf each year.
>
> So, I don't think we want to list ALL organizers in the sponsors
> brochure, nor do we want to play favorites and pick the 10 most
> important organizers. Perhaps we can improve the status quo and
> recognize ALL of the organizers on the DC15 website (photos
> optional)?
My rationale here is that this is "only" the sponsor's brochure,
it's not really a statement of credit. I would say: pick 10 people
at random, maybe amend a bit for diversity. I don't need to be in
there, just so that's clear. I just think some faces and names
enhance the message.
Thanks for your great feedback. I hope I answered your questions to
your satisfaction! ;)
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debconf.org> @martinkrafft
: :' : DebConf orga team
`. `'`
`- DebConf14: Portland, OR, USA: http://debconf14.debconf.org
DebConf15: Heidelberg, Germany: http://debconf15.debconf.org
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)