Re: Sponsoring: expenses we should not pay directly
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 9:09 AM, martin f krafft <madduck@debconf.org> wrote:
> - day trip
Increased social activity, showcasing the beautiful surroundings of
Heidelberg to the world, and sporty activities which increase health.
> - conference dinner
As this is a social happening which heightens the chances of
high-grade speakers attending, thus increasing overall benefit and
exchange of knowledge etc pp...
> In our experience from other conferences, this could fly well, as
> sponsors are happy to spend more money if they get extravagant
> placement in return.
Said extravagant placement may alienate attendees or other sponsors. I
am not saying that would happen, but I am saying we should communicate
this early and clearly.
And it should not be the "ACME day trip SPONSORED BY ACME! BY THE WAY
ACME!" type sponsoring. A banner at the dinner may be OK; a speech by
a representative during dinner not so much. Point being, there should
be a balance and the perks clearly defined and weighed.
> Looking forward to your thoughts!
I think we can possibly redefine one or two items of the above to fit
with legal requirements, especially since perks like those are widely
regarded as integral part of a conference.
Still, I have no problem with direct sponsorship of events if done
right. Matter of fact, I always liked it. With a FOSDEM staff & beer
token sale hat on: the sponsored beer events are more fun than the
non-sponsored one we had this year. And all it takes to make (and
break...) that is the presence, or lack, of one single banner behind
the token sale.
Richard
Reply to: