On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Moray Allan <mo...@sermisy.org> wrote: > 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!)
So in my view is that by breaking it down in a more granular fashion it is better from both the factor of fairness as well as an optimization of revenue factor. IE: If we go with one discount level, we either need to give a larger discount than needed to the larger SME orgs (losing potential revenue), or if we go for a smaller discount that covered more companies, it wouldn't really change things much for the smaller SME companies, and likely aren't going to positively influence their sponsoring behavior. I do see the desire to only go with one sponsorship tier is that it makes things easier for sponsors-team. (Which is largely a good thing, but needs to be balanced.) One way to address this could be accomplished by setting up a registration page for sponsors. Since I suspect we don't have someone to work on a form, I'd be willing be willing to go with a single discount tier until we can get a web form in place. (Giving sponsors an option for an automated or partly automated registration process, is probably something that many sponsors would like, and would certainly have long term benefits for the -team.) Regarding validating employee counts, I think we have no real choice but to defer to the sponsoring company, and trust they will do the right thing. IE: In my view this sponsor sign-up web form, I just proposed, would have the tiers listed, and allow sponsoring organizations to select the number of employees they have with the default being (> 250). In lieu of a web-form the brochure would detail this, and we would just ask which tier they are sponsoring at and what amount they are sponsoring. I don't feel it is really that important for us to know exactly how many employees they have, with some sort of detailed census/audit/proof. IE: If there is a clear error, I suspect it would likely be an actual error rather than a deliberate falsification, that we can ask the sponsor about, but otherwise, I don't think we need to be pressed here. >>> 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 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. So I believe most (but not all) of the reasons for a steel tier existing, would be addressed by this proposal, so I agree with Moray, and would hesitate to reinstate it as we have 4 major tiers and that *should* be enough to work with, if we recognize sizes of sponsors as a differentiating factor. IE: reinstating steel as it existed, just recreates issues we are trying to resolve, and doesn't really tackle the issue of recognizing smaller recurring sponsors head on. I'd be open to reconsider a steel tier if we had a lot more sponsors-perks, and needed a way to differentiate, but I don't think that is a likely scenario. I'd also say, if for some reason the sponsors-team comes across a number of companies asking for a lower sponsorship tier, that isn't addressed by this proposal, we can revisit? Cheers, Brian P.S. - Not for this DebConf, but I do think that going forward, if we can streamline the sponsorship process, we should in theory have more time as a team, and would like to use some of that time used to brainstorm additional perks for sponsors. e.g. - ideas like bringing back bags, or having playing cards with sponsor logos printed, etc. > -- > Moray > > _______________________________________________ > Debconf-team mailing list > Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org > http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
