PodCamp Ohio - What's Next
Angelo Mandato
PodCamp Ohio 2009
I think it is safe to say we can plan on PodCamp Ohio 2009. At this early stage, there are two items we should think about before the end of the year.
- Create a Non-profit organization 503(c). We had a couple sponsorship opportunities that did not pan out this year because we're not organized as a non-profit. A 503(c) would allow a sponsor to write off the donation, a huge incentive for a company like BestBuy.
- Determine if we need a larger location for next year.
Does anyone have any experience setting up a non-profit or a board for that matter?
Should we start thinking about a larger location for next year?
--angelo
--
PodCamp Ohio
June 28, 2008
Twitter: podcampohio
Web: www.podcampohio.com
Scott Merrill
> Create a Non-profit organization 503(c). We had a couple sponsorship
> opportunities that did not pan out this year because we're not organized as
> a non-profit. A 503(c) would allow a sponsor to write off the donation, a
> huge incentive for a company like BestBuy.
OhioLinux looked at creating a non-profit organization for the event,
and decided it wasn't worth ti. There are some very specific
restrictions on non-profits that make them not entirely appropriate
for this kind of event. Since it's primarily a once-a-year event, and
not a year-round operation, it can get difficult to justify the
non-profit status to the IRS.
But of course I'm not a lawyer, and am not offering legal advice.
When in doubt, consult an attorney.
> Determine if we need a larger location for next year.
Yes, we absolutely need bigger class rooms next year.
> Does anyone have any experience setting up a non-profit or a board for that
> matter?
Yes. I prepared the 501(C)(3) application for FreeGeek Columbus.
It's not terribly complicated once you figure out how to answer the
questions. The pro bono tax attorney I found for the group was
extremely helpful. I can furnish a contact if you'd like to consult
with him.
> Should we start thinking about a larger location for next year?
Yes, absolutely.
Cheers,
Scott
Joseph Erickson
We will definitely need a bigger space. I would say we barely didn't fit in the ITT space and even having 30 more people would have been way too much. We should find out from the OhioLinux guys what the Convention center is going for these days.
Joe Erickson
http://www.firstclown.us/
Dr. A
Just some opening thoughts....
Brandice
Angelo Mandato
Douglas Dangler may be able to help us obtain space at OSU next year. I think we've done a great job establishing that PodCamp has educational value so our event may be more attractive to OSU. Last year I couldn't find a department interested in hosting PodCamp at OSU. Most of my calls transferred me to the Fawcett Center, which was going to charge over 2k for renting a couple rooms for the day. It also meant taht lunch had to be catered by the Fawcett Center.
We may be able to inquire about using OCLC for next year's PodCamp. Their facilities are similar to ITT but with larger rooms.
A non profit has to have activity throughout the year, we did have monthly meetups which should qualify as continuous organization activity. This is something we will need to consult a lawyer/accountant about. Anyway, at this point it's just a discussion.
--angelo
Scott Merrill
> I like the idea of the optional registration fee that Linux Fest does. Those
> who pay the registration fee get T-shirts and other event materials. If you
> can't afford it, you register for free then you don't get a t-shirt. Scott
> can explain that to us in more detail.
OhioLinux was in the same boat: a free conference is hard to grow
while maintaining quality without money; and there's only so many
sponsors willing to donate so much money to yet another upstart
conference with dubious return on investment potential.
I'm not entirely sure how the idea started, but I think there was a
sizable number of attendees asking if they could give money to OLF,
they enjoyed it that much. So the "All Con Pass" system was launched,
whereby attendees could purchase a ticket for a reasonable sum. Folks
who pay get incentives like tee shirts, special swag, and drink
tickets at the after party.
It's worked out extremely well for OLF. It's an idea worth exploring
for PodCamp Ohio, now that you have some real metrics under your belt
against which to compare future events.
> Douglas Dangler may be able to help us obtain space at OSU next year. I
> think we've done a great job establishing that PodCamp has educational value
From my experience here, OSU as an organization is _extremely_
hesitant to provide space for many events, for a variety of reasons.
As a state-funded institution, there are some restrictions on what
they can endorse; and they elect to go farther than the rules in order
to avoid appearances of impropriety. They're extremely jealous of
their name and image, and work to protect it at all costs. There are
also liability issues, and facilities maintenance issues involved.
Then there's the issue of parking. OSU just isn't geared to support a
large number of temporary visitors. Parking isn't usually close to
the buildings big enough to hold an event. And finding buildings on
campus can be a non-trivial exercise even for folks who are on campus
every day!
> We may be able to inquire about using OCLC for next year's PodCamp. Their
> facilities are similar to ITT but with larger rooms.
I know two OCLC employees. Let me know if I can be of any assistance.
I wonder if an old-school media outlet might be an option? A radio or
television station, perhaps?
> A non profit has to have activity throughout the year, we did have monthly
> meetups which should qualify as continuous organization activity. This is
> something we will need to consult a lawyer/accountant about. Anyway, at this
> point it's just a discussion.
I am not a lawyer, but I can almost guarantee that meeting to plan the
event will not qualify as a tax exempt action sufficient to earn or
maintain a 501(c)(3) designation.
There are specific education and charitable actions that need to occur
if you want to be a non-profit. The yearly PodCamp Ohio conference
will not qualify as sufficiently educational by itself. The
instructions for IRS form 1023 detail the kinds of activities that
qualify as charitable. The IRS wants to make sure it's not giving out
non-profit status to folks looking for a tax dodge, but also to make
sure they're not supporting social clubs. There needs to be specific
business activities that get tax exempt status.
Like I said, OLF explored this option. I can ping the group to get
more info on the matter from them, if you'd like. The emails I saw
said basically "we won't qualify, so we're not pursuing this". I
didn't ask for more detail at the time.
Cheers,
Scott
Gabe Taviano
Angelo Mandato
Speaking of critiquing the event, I found our first scolding post, it is from Owen Winkler (http://asymptomatic.net/2008/07/01/2732/podcamp-ohio). I think the underlying theme of his post is that we need to draw PodCamp more toward a BarCamp than as a conference.
Other PodCamps do not do this but next year we could tell the speakers how to structure their session(s) in order to encourage round table / barcamp style sessions throughout the day. I really don't want to do this myself but I believe this is exactly what Owen expected. We need to find out if more attendees expected this and if so we should seriously consider Owens comments.
I got the impression from Owen that we should have done more in terms of sponsorship love during the day. Sponsorship love is tricky, my personal opinion is if you shove the sponsorship too hard to the audience then the underlining reason we're all their becomes secondary. From what I gather from Owen though, we we need to explore other ways to give sponsors love without pissing off the attendees.
As far as space available in the sessions, we definitely will have to consider a different venue location for next year.
--angelo
Kristen Beireis - Virtual Helper 4 U
Hey all!
First I want to say a HUGE thank you to all those who made my job EASY on Saturday (I may have looked frazzled, but I really wasn’t). If it hadn’t been for the leadership of Angelo and Brandice and all the work that the rest of you put into designing, organizing and getting things ready for that day, I wouldn’t have been able to do MY job. So, thanks for taking YOUR time and getting it all done, so I didn’t’ have to do anything last minute! I can’t put into words how grateful I am for such an amazing group of organizers.
After having time to absorb PodCamp and reading Owen’s review, I have a few things to put out there for next year.
1) No speakers lounge, it doesn’t follow the rules of Podcamp.
2) I think we need to do more education for the speakers. I agree that many of them had their own agenda and they didn’t let a conversation ensue within the room. I wanted a leader, but I’m with Owen…I don’t want a pre-formed speech, I want information and then a discussion on that little piece of information. It’s not something that just ANYONE can do, but it would make for a seriously cooler PodCamp next year. We’ll need to make sure they KNOW before they sign up what is expected of them. Just personal opinion here, but I’m tempted to ban powerpoint presentations. That’s just me. I think the session that most followed that format was the Tools session and even though we didn’t get far into his talking points, it WAS a fascinating discussion and one of the sessions where I learned the most.
3) Venue – As the coordinator of the day, I wouldn’t want to see any MORE sessions than what we had. We definitely need something that has the open space of the area where we had lunch, people really seemed to enjoy just hanging out there (and didn’t want to go into our classroom marked “Podcamp lounge”) so if that’s possible, let’s bring it back. Convention center is really chaotic and difficult with the food. When there are lots of things going on in the building, the food court has a hard time keeping up. It’s one of the main reasons I’m thrilled that they now hold Magic Tournaments at the Veteran’s center instead…it was awful at the convention center. Please pick a space with rooms close together like ITT. It was difficult enough to make sure sessions wrapped up and kept moving at ITT, I couldn’t have handled it more spread out. We also need a venue where we aren’t disturbing anyone. At ITT there were classes going on and in an effort to not piss them off, we tried to keep the noise down. If this is TRULY going to be a podcamp, we gotta be able to be podcasting, interviewing and talking all over the place without fear of pissing off our host.
4) Volunteers – Many showed up late and some didn’t show up at all. I was lucky to have a good solid group that DID show up and help (THANKS SO MUCH!!!). I’d like to see a larger group next year. That way (should I decide to do it again), the coordinator can enjoy more of the sessions, because volunteers can take some of the load.
5) I think the unkeynote should include some information on doorways, hallways and doors being closed. I didn’t know this until after the first session, but people are encouraged to have conversations outside of doorways. Speakers have the right to close the door. I don’t know if such a space exists, but if we could have a space that would give room for outside discussions without distracting the formal sessions, so the speakers could leave doors open, I’d like to go there. I like the free movement of open doors. It allowed me to duck in and out of sessions. When I go to one where I was thinking, um…yeah, I know that stuff, I could move to the next one without being inhibited by a door. It supports the two feet rule.
I think that’s it for now. I’m looking forward to having an even MORE AWESOME PodCamp Ohio next year (I don’t care that my grammar is incorrect).
Create a great day!
The Marketing Implementation Coach,
Kristen Beireis
http://www.virtualhelper4u.com
Helping coaches who are overloaded with marketing, check off their
to-do's and change more lives.
Scott Merrill
> Speaking of critiquing the event, I found our first scolding post, it is
> from Owen Winkler (http://asymptomatic.net/2008/07/01/2732/podcamp-ohio). I
> think the underlying theme of his post is that we need to draw PodCamp more
> toward a BarCamp than as a conference.
I share some of Owen's misgivings about the nature of the event; but
some of that could well have been due to misunderstanding all around.
I, too, was expecting a more conversational experience in the
sessions, rather than a traditional lecture followed by Q&A in
whatever time remained after the prepared remarks.
I suspect most of the people were first-time unconference goers, and
simply didn't know what to expect (like me); and as such didn't
exercise the Law of Two Feet.
I don't know if this was explained in the opening remarks (I missed
them), but if not then a quick overview of how the unconference is
intended to work might be beneficial toward building the desired
experience.
> I got the impression from Owen that we should have done more in terms of
> sponsorship love during the day. Sponsorship love is tricky, my personal
> opinion is if you shove the sponsorship too hard to the audience then the
> underlining reason we're all their becomes secondary. From what I gather
> from Owen though, we we need to explore other ways to give sponsors love
> without pissing off the attendees.
I find it funny that many of the people attending the day's events
were there specifically to find out how to make money using social
media tools, but the event organizer is afraid of overly
commercializing the event. :)
As someone who kicked in money as a sponsor, I can tell you
unequivocably that we didn't get our money's worth, and we're unlikely
to sponsor next year.
Again, this might have been due to misunderstandings all around. The
only conferences I have to compare against are several years of OLF,
and two years of O'Reilly's Open Source Conference (OSCON). At each
of these events, sponsors get thanked at the beginning and end of the
show. They also get an opportunity to connect with the attendees on a
one-on-one basis at vendor tables. Rather than a table on which all
marketing materials are shared, sponsors get their own table at which
they can set up demos and engage the audience. This is what I was
expecting, and I was excited about the opportunity to talk to people
about Habari. I was frustrated that no such space was available; and
I was frankly pissed off when The Hell Hole Tavern buttons were dumped
into the bowl holding our Habari buttons. I was expecting a little
more from the event to make our sponsorship a worthwhile investment.
Now, had we known ahead of time how things were going to play out, I
would have known to lower my expectations. Maybe we mis-read the
sponsorship information. The more precise you can be about explaining
_exactly_ what sponsors get for their money, the better.
I don't think sponsors should get free commercials throughout the show
(or, worse, use a session to pitch their wares, as has happened at OLF
more than once), but I think some recognition of their investment
beyond just their name in a program guide is acceptable. Sponsors put
their money forward specifically to get their name in front of the
audience. From what I saw, that didn't happen.
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Gabe Taviano <ga...@godsmac.com> wrote:
>> (1) Maybe look at expanding the conference to two days. This might benefit
>> those that had trouble choosing which session to go to, with there being so
>> many going on at once. Maybe have 4-5 hours of sessions in one afternoon,
>> and 4-5 hours of sessions the next morning / early afternoon.
Two days sounds like a good idea, but it makes it harder for
out-of-towners to schedule their weekend. It's pretty easy for folks
from Cleveland to make it down to Columbus for a day, and then drive
home. A two day event means a hotel, or a lot more driving, and
really complicates things.
I think one day is the sweet spot.
Cheers,
Scott
Angelo Mandato
One thing that I'm mad at myself is that I never explained that sponsors can setup their table how ever they wanted. Habari could have taken the opportunity to setup computers and presented demonstrations at their table.
I honestly never intended to minimize Habari's sponsorship. I am very sorry that you feel your sponsorship was unsuccessful at PodCamp Ohio.
--angelo
Scott Merrill
> I think the sponsors issue is a real problem. What would be ideal is to
> create a team of 2-4 organizers early on where their entire job is to please
> the sponsors through the entire process. I will admit that I alone should
> not have handled this task. I should have spent more time weeks before the
> event with sponsors such as Habari to devise a plan how they can maximize
> their exposure during the event.
>
> One thing that I'm mad at myself is that I never explained that sponsors can
> setup their table how ever they wanted. Habari could have taken the
> opportunity to setup computers and presented demonstrations at their table.
>
> I honestly never intended to minimize Habari's sponsorship. I am very sorry
> that you feel your sponsorship was unsuccessful at PodCamp Ohio.
Thanks for the clarification, Angelo. For the record, I'm not mad at
anyone (certainly not you, Angelo!), and I'm not resentful.
I don't want to see my opinions overly dilute the overwhelming
positive response everyone else seems to have had. A lot went right
on Saturday, and it's important not to lose sight of that fact. You
(all) pulled off a great feat on your first try, and there's little
doubt that the foundations for PodCamp Ohio 2009 have been set.
That's something about which everyone should feel proud.
I do think it's important to give feedback, however, so that next
year's event can improve on the shortcomings of this year's events.
This is a learning experience for everyone.
I didn't get too involved in sponsorship goings-on at PodCamp Ohio
because I was involved AS a sponsor, and I didn't want to create an
appearance of conflict of interest. I agree that it's a good idea to
have a dedicated person (or two) to coordinate sponsors and make sure
that all parties understand what's being offered in exchange for what.
I can tell you from experience that if PodCamp takes off, sponsors
will want more and more from you. Being prepared to handle their
reasonable requests, and say no to their unreasonable ones, is a real
skill.
Owen and I talked a lot Saturday night and Sunday morning, reviewing
the day's events. We both came to the conclusion that it's perfectly
okay for sponsors to be used strictly for cash money, and in exchange
they get nothing more than a blurb in the program. Owen informs me
that other unconferences have done this (blogOrlando, I think he
said?). They make it clear that there is no space provided to
sponsors, and only a brief mention of them will be made at the start
of the day. That's one way to do it, and if folks know not to expect
anything more, that's fine.
Personally, I really like the "each sponsor gets a table" approach,
because it gives folks something to do between sessions (or if they
skip a session). It also usually gets more swag into the hands of the
attendees. :) It gives sponsors an opportunity to speak directly to
potential customers, and it lets sponsors see what one another are
doing in an open forum. OLF uses the model that sponsors spending
more money get more space. That's worked well for them, and it's
worth considering for PCO. It's not the only way to do it.
I don't like in-your-face advertising, any more than anyone else; and
I wouldn't want to see every single aspect of PCO commercialized
("Next in the Habari Room, session such-and-such..."). The organizers
need to find the balance that is most comfortable to them, and
communicate the expectations appropriately to the sponsors. And it's
incumbent on the sponsors to ask questions to make sure any grey areas
are resolved. I admit that I didn't do this for Habari: I had an
expectation that PCO would be like the other cons I attended, and
never took the time to confirm that. Maybe the sponsor coordinator
can make it a point to ask the sponsors if they have any questions.
Cheers,
Scott
ringmaster
>
> Speaking of critiquing the event, I found our first scolding post, it is
> from Owen Winkler (http://asymptomatic.net/2008/07/01/2732/podcamp-ohio). I
> think the underlying theme of his post is that we need to draw PodCamp more
> toward a BarCamp than as a conference.
>
> Other PodCamps do not do this but next year we could tell the speakers how
> to structure their session(s) in order to encourage round table / barcamp
> style sessions throughout the day. I really don't want to do this myself but
> I believe this is exactly what Owen expected. We need to find out if more
> attendees expected this and if so we should seriously consider Owens
> comments.
offering venues for discussion at podcamp rather than primarily
soapboxes for presenters. Having a few straight-up presentations/
lectures is probably good for the people who expect that, but it is my
opinion that people expecting presentations will not be let down by
round-table-style discussions.
Encouraging session leaders to approach their topics with the
expectation of greater discussion would be beneficial.
As I've seen a couple of events grow, I know that the first year tends
toward fact-finding from participants seeking to get started in the
topic. The second year tends toward specific technical issues. This
year's newbie sessions were very well organized and received. Imagine
all of those people coming back next year with questions or personal
stories. It will be even more beneficial if those participants get
speaking time.
> I got the impression from Owen that we should have done more in terms of
> sponsorship love during the day. Sponsorship love is tricky, my personal
> opinion is if you shove the sponsorship too hard to the audience then the
> underlining reason we're all their becomes secondary. From what I gather
> from Owen though, we we need to explore other ways to give sponsors love
> without pissing off the attendees.
we'd expect attendees not to want to sit through a reading of the list
of sponsors at the beginning and ending of the event. I wouldn't
expect to name rooms after sponsors, or to have to talk about sponsors
before each session. I think it can be done tastefully.
It would simply be nice if when listing the people who made the event
possible that the list included not just the volunteers (who are
without a doubt very appreciated) but also the people/companies that
funded the event and the people who led sessions, both without whom
the event wouldn't have happened. I think this is quite reasonable to
expect.
Alternatively, do like blogOrlando: Tell sponsors up front that they
get *nothing*. They actually get their logo on the conference t-
shirt. That's it. Being completely clear with sponsors what value
they're going to get seems like the most important take-away from this
sponsorship issue.
> As far as space available in the sessions, we definitely will have to
> consider a different venue location for next year.
making discussion and personal interaction a priority, having regular
interludes between sessions and a defined space for during-session
discussions to take place would be spiffy.
I also wanted to mention that although my post comes off as very
negative, I still had a good time at Podcamp. Meeting people there
was the best part of the experience. I think there is potential for a
great event next year, and I hope the criticism I offered only helps
improve the event. (Also, sorry to folks who commented on my post
only to have hours of writing lost in my spam filter. I've tuned my
site to be a little overzealous in defense from spam, just because I
hate comment spam that much.)
Owen