Tiers of sponsorship?

[Pete Prodoehl]

I'm interested to hear what people think about offering different levels
of sponsorship for BarCamp-like events...

Does it go against the BarCamp philosophy?

I've always tried to make a level playing field for the events we do,
where the local startup has just as much chance of being a sponsor (on
the same level) as the titans of the industry... where you can't buy
better exposure with a check, but all sponsors are treated as equals in
making an event happen.

In my mind, it's the same as saying "there is no keynote session at a
BarCamp" because that assigns more value to one person/organization that
all others, and doesn't really promote equality and the fact that
everyone has something useful to contribute.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Pete

[Christopher St John]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Pete Prodoehl <ras...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm interested to hear what people think about offering different levels
> of sponsorship for BarCamp-like events...
>
> Does it go against the BarCamp philosophy?
>

I think it goes against the BarCamp philosophy a little, and in events
I've helped organize I've tried to keep differentiation to a minimum.
That said, I've been to events that had tiers and it didn't seem like
that big a deal.

Having sponsors actually sponsor something in particular (rather
than give a generic wad of cash) seems like a good approach.
Sponsoring lunch (or drinks after the event) is implicitly "tiered"
in that it gives sponsors a chance to show off. Smaller sponsors
can put in a bit more work and get the same effect, so it's not
purely based on money.

And of course the venue sponsors get their logo up everywhere,
since it's their building :-)

-cks

--
Christopher St. John
http://artofsystems.blogspot.com

[JP Toto]

We had tiers (and caps) for Barcamp Philadelphia last fall. This way it allowed individuals to donate to the event as well. You can see the tier levels at our website http://www.barcampphilly.com/sponsors/

This allowed some flexibility in a city where we'd never had a barcamp before and where we had to work really hard to "sell" the idea to people that could help us. I'm not implying that you turn it into a commercial venture.

The differences in perks for sponsor levels was very small, so as not to change the spirit of barcamp. Larger sponsors just got a slightly larger logo on our t-shirt. Otherwise the scheduling and process worked in the traditional sense.

Hope that helps.

--
JP Toto
james....@gmail.com
http://www.viceclown.com

--
JP Toto
james....@gmail.com
http://www.viceclown.com

[Frederic Baud]

I tend to think that the notion of "equal access" really lies at the
heart of BarCamp. This means of course equal access for participants
(no filtering), for presenters (no keynote speakers), but probably
also for sponsors. For these last ones, it should materialize by the
fact that a big company should not get an advantage over a smaller one
just because it has deeper pockets. The fact of capping sponsorship to
a reasonable level for a small company (like $300) does in my view
provide equal access.

Now it is clear that a company contributing by providing a venue or
food (sometimes both) is kind of contributing a bit more than others
and it makes sense that they can be given a certain level of exposure
because of their contribution. But I would believe that tiers based on
financial contributions would go against the "equal access" spirit.

Frederic

[BarCamp Planners]

Whenever cks provides his advice, you should listen. ;)

Seriously though, the basic reason to limit cash sponsorship is to enable individuals to contribute and to make a difference — even if it's $25. $25 next to $3000 doesn't feel as significant as compared with $300. Beyond that, BarCamp is about doing more with less, and not about one-up-manship or trying to compete on lavishness. BarCamp is designed and intended to be accessible to folks of all kinds of means — where passion and a few friends should be all that's necessary to pull one off!

Now, that said, the caveat is as cks described. We tend not to put a limit on "in-kind" contributions where an individual or company goes out of its way to do or provide something for an event, like buying lunch, morning  food or sponsoring a round of drinks. We've had a law firm in the past spend $3000 on lunch (resulting in FAR TOO MUCH leftovers!) and had other companies get together to sponsor an after party that went over the cash sponsorship limit. As long as these things are done with an eye to making a meaningful contribution to the event, I think it's okay.

For the most part, having to manage more money means having to manage more expectations and having to kiss up to sponsors. While we love them and they make the event possible — serving them should never be prioritized above serving the needs and interests of individual campers.

Chris

--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
 Open Web Advocate-at-Large

factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

[planspark]

Please add your case studies (how you handled sponsoring and how it
worked out) here:

http://barcamp.org/Sponsoring

Thanks,
Tim