On 6/14/2011 12:14 PM, Mark Jordan wrote:
-before negotiating with sponsors, have a policy on whether sponsorship gets them a slot on the program. IIRC there was a long discussion about this on the c4l planning list.
That is the thing the community has really not liked the idea of in the past. We want our program controlled by ourselves as peers, not by the funders. I think we're all pretty keen on sticking to this, and have not needed to violate it in past confs to get funding.
-some sponsors might want to distribute branded material, and if you're planning on not handing out a log of swag, this might be a problem.
On the other hand, THIS is something that has been done before, and nobody has had a problem with, it seems like a fine idea. Of course, presumably the sponsors pay for and provide their own swag or adverts -- if the conf pays for that then it obviously diminishes the monetary value of the sponsorship (in worst case making it a loss!).
And it's also worth pointing out that all sponsors should be treated the same -- if one gets a certain benefit at a certain monetary level, everyone at that monetary level should -- the benefits they get at monetary levels out to be documented somewhere.
Somewhere in the past I know there's been a documented page with sponsorship benefits -- but now I can't find it. Getting people to help you find that documented policy/list of benefits sounds like a good idea, to use or refine for this year.
The importance of treating all sponsors the same contradicts a bit my earlier suggestion about "wait and see if sponsors require more" -- although you could still do wait and see, you'd just have to go back and notify people who already committed that now they get more (or could get more at a higher level), if you add more. It would get a bit weird though. So I think you're doing well to be thinking about this now, way in advance, and ideally create a policy and stick to it.
