Planners, Robert,
We have offered an (exclusive) Video Sponsorship for a long time with no takers. This puzzled me because I always thought of it as the most valuable sponsorship we have because the videos get seen by so many more people than just attendees and it is much more “durable” in the sense that these videos will continue to be viewed for years after the icons and links for other sponsorships disappear from our website. Note: The Video Sponsorship includes a pre-roll. See the first twenty seconds of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-hZpChQKe0 Last year was the first year that we had taker on the Video Sponsorship (Tripwire). This year JetBrains is taking it. I’m considering raising the rate for that sponsorships and perhaps making it non-exclusive. With (historically) so few takers, it may seem counter intuitive to raise the rate, but I think sponsoring professionally produced videos is more valuable than our previous offering. For context, here is what is in this year’s Sponsorship Prospectus: · Gold: $5k · Silver: $3K · Bronze: $1K · Corporate S/V: $1K · Lunch: $3K · Video (only one): $2500 If we offered a non-exclusive Video Sponsorship, here is how it would work. If you just want to be a Video Sponsor you pay X (the non-exclusive rate) and you may be the only one. But if someone else also wants, they can pay X as well. Each video will have two pre-rolls with each coming first on half the videos. If you want to be the exclusive Video Sponsor you pay Y (the exclusive Video Sponsorship rate) and we’ll accept no other Video Sponsors. Once we accept a Video Sponsor, the exclusive Video Sponsorship is no longer available (except as an upgrade to the existing Video Sponsor). Questions for planners: · What should be the rate for the Video Sponsorship? · Should we offer a non-exclusive Video Sponsorship? o If so, what should the rates be for the exclusive and non-exclusive versions be? · I’ve considering offering a Picnic Sponsorship. What should be the rate for that? Consider that a lunch sponsorship is $3K. Thanks. On 2017-02-02, 9:41 AM, "Robert Ramey" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: On 2/2/17 8:14 AM, Michael Caisse wrote: > Also related, C++Now is a very... interactive conference. By that I > mean some of what makes it great are the discussions that take place > during certain sessions between the attendees and the speaker. A > talk is often very different from a lecture followed by questions, > and that is, in my opinion at least, a good thing, especially given > the nature of some of the sessions. Unfortunately this makes it > difficult to capture in a video. Frequently you will only hear one > side of a conversation (the speaker) and may be somewhat lost as to > exactly what is being discussed. Always having the speaker repeat > questions helps in some ways, but also has the negative side-effect > of killing the momentum of a conversation. It'd be great if we could > better capture the experience of a C++Now session seamlessly. Very good observation that I hadn't thought of. > > So if we end up getting professionals to do the recordings, they > should probably be aware of this dynamic, as they may have a > solution that we either haven't thought of or have been unable to > implement. I'm thinking anything from a couple of extra mics > appropriately placed (possibly difficult in some rooms), or even > "crowd-sourced" mic'ing, which I believe someone mentioned last year > as a real possibility (someone either described or hypothesized a > mobile app that allows individual attendees to record, and the > recordings are then automatically synchronized into tracks for > editting). How about one of the student volunteers with a walk around mic? Also requiring those with questions to stand and use the mic would be helpful. Seems very easy to implement and would be a huge help. It would also help clarify the distinction betwee CPPCon - the general C++ user - and C++Now - the movers and drivers of the future of C++. C++Now doesn't publish "proceedings" in spite of the attempt to give the conference sort of an "academic" flavor. The videos are the only record of what goes on there. So this action is at least several years overdue. Finally, there should be some investigation of the possibilities of using the videos as revenue generators for Boost/C++Now. When I look at youtube videos I often have to see 5 sec of propaganda before I can hit "skip ad". Though I don't like ads, I consider this a fair exchange for the value of watching the video. I believe that this would be a valuable resource to specific advertisers such as tech recruiters, organizations selling C++ training, special hardware and who knows who else. I have no idea what the infrastructure that supports this looks like, but I see it as a useful way to funnel resources into boost which could be usefully employed. Also the copy rights on the videos should remain with Boost. Just some random thoughts. Robert Ramey -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Boost Steering Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Boost Steering Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
