[Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus

Tue Apr 12 10:22:11 EDT 2016

Thanks for all your comments! I hate to see all our hard work go to waste
and am looking forward to figuring out a way to make this work for
sponsors, conference organizers, and the PSF. I've attached the most recent
high res file.

Betsy

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:32 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at python.org> wrote:

> On 12.04.2016 04:09, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > On 12 April 2016 at 06:20, Betsy Waliszewski <betsy at python.org> wrote:
> >> Hi team,
> >>
> >> After discussing this with Ewa, we're going to put this project on hold
> >> until after PyCon. I've requested an invoice to pay for the design
> services
> >> so far. We can revisit adding clarity to the proposal after the
> conference
> >> is over and I have time to dedicate to this important project.
> >
> > I agree that makes sense from a staff focus perspective, but would it
> > still be acceptable for us to pitch the prospectus directly in its
> > current form?
>
> Sure, why not ?
>
> The current form is what we had discussed. I suspect that
> when opening up the discussion again, we'll either end up with
> something that will need a new version of the brochure or
> we come to the conclusion that the bundle idea is not
> really working out, in which case, we'd stop putting more
> effort into this.
>
> > I'm currently trying to explain to Red Hat's Open Source
> > & Standards team the differences between working with a public
> > interest charity and trade associations run in the interests of
> > sponsor members, as well as asking if a fee waiver for a year or two
> > would impact their current attitude of "We don't want to pay a modest
> > admin fee to help a public interest charity run a self-supporting
> > regional conference funding program". However, Red Hat's annual
> > budgeting cycle runs March -> February, so if we put the idea entirely
> > on hold from the PSF side until July or so (allowing a month for
> > post-PyCon wind down activities and bringing the new Board up to
> > speed), it would make more sense for me to defer that argument until
> > next financial year.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nick.
> >
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Betsy
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 15 March 2016 at 04:10, Betsy Waliszewski <betsy at python.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Nick,
> >>>>
> >>>> We're not using the google doc where you posted your comments. The
> PDF I
> >>>> sent around is our working document.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, nice - that *is* very attractive!
> >>>
> >>>> That being said, we do need to
> >>>> incorporate new language more clearly identifying the benefits and
> >>>> whatever
> >>>> discounts we decide to offer.
> >>>
> >>> Right, at the moment it isn't clear what the benefits are relative to
> >>> sponsoring directly, nor where the 15% program administration charge
> >>> is going to go. It may be helpful if there were a couple of sections
> >>> like:
> >>>
> >>> Program Sponsor Benefits:
> >>> * year-round acknowledgement on python.org in addition to any
> >>> acknowledgements on individual conference sites
> >>> * single point of financial contact for 10+ conferences
> >>> * consistent financial arrangements year-over-year
> >>> * delegated responsibility for compliance with financial regulations
> >>> in recipient countries
> >>>
> >>> Program Administration Activities:
> >>> * disbursing funds to participating conferences in compliance with
> >>> local and international regulations
> >>> * advising community-led conferences on working effectively with
> sponsors
> >>> * advising sponsors on working effectively with community-led
> conferences
> >>> * advising community-led conferences on responsibly managing financial
> >>> risks
> >>> * promoting and facilitating the addition of further community-led
> >>> conferences to the program
> >>> * collection and presentation of sponsorship details from
> >>> participating conferences in a standard format
> >>>
> >>> The first suggested point under "sponsor benefits" is a new one, but
> >>> something we could do pretty easily that represents a concrete perk
> >>> above and beyond sponsoring the individual conferences.
> >>>
> >>>> The challenge is that the only thing we can discount is the admin fee.
> >>>> Based
> >>>> on my feedback, even if we didn't charge any fees, I'm not convinced
> >>>> that
> >>>> any companies would take us up on what we're offering in the
> prospectus.
> >>>
> >>> We have a bit of a chicken & egg problem here - we need conference
> >>> organisers to get involved to make the program attractive to sponsors,
> >>> but we need sponsors to get involved to make the program attractive to
> >>> conference organisers.
> >>>
> >>> Given the somewhat experimental nature of the program, perhaps it
> >>> might make sense to offer a straight up fee waiver for the first year
> >>> or two for the inaugural sponsors? That would mean a greater
> >>> speculative investment on the PSF's part, but it could potentially get
> >>> us past the bootstrapping stage, and provide the initial impetus
> >>> needed to create a virtuous cycle of sponsor participation attracting
> >>> conference participation, which makes the program more attractive to
> >>> future sponsors, which makes it more obviously beneficial for
> >>> conferences to participate, etc...
> >>>
> >>> It would also mean we could be up front with the inaugural sponsors
> >>> that the 15% figure is a preliminary estimate for what we think would
> >>> be needed to make this program self-sustaining rather than
> >>> cross-subsidised by other PSF revenue raising activities, and we
> >>> wouldn't actually start charging the admin fee until we had a year or
> >>> two of real data to use to calibrate the appropriate amount.
> >>>
> >>>> Granted, we only sent the prospectus to 6-7 companies, so we don't
> have
> >>>> a
> >>>> lot of data to look at.
> >>>
> >>> Right, and a number of those are companies where their list of
> >>> sponsored Python conferences is already longer than the list in the
> >>> prospectus, so the value proposition for them is different from that
> >>> for organisations where the program will hopefully let them expand
> >>> their reach beyond what they could readily manage on their own.
> >>>
> >>>> I'm very willing to add copy to our working doc, but I need help with
> >>>> the
> >>>> wording. A page could be added before the "Build Your Own Bundle" page
> >>>> that
> >>>> shows the offer that is not "custom" or a la carte and the discount.
> >>>> Right
> >>>> now, we're only showing a custom option.
> >>>
> >>> Postponing the bundles to the 2nd year of the program is still
> >>> attractive from the point of view of keeping things as simple as we
> >>> can this time around. There are also other ways we could structure the
> >>> discounts, such as on a "length of continuous participation" basis
> >>> (since a sponsor organisation is likely to require more handholding in
> >>> the first year than they are in subsequent years), or in terms of
> >>> sheer number of conferences sponsored.
> >>>
> >>> So despite my advocacy for the "bundle discount" approach, I'm
> >>> becoming more of a fan of the "as thanks for helping us launch the
> >>> prospectus, first year sponsors will have their admin fees waived for
> >>> the first two years the international prospectus is in operation". We
> >>> likely do need to be explicit that the PSF doesn't plan to subsidise
> >>> sponsor's administration costs indefinitely, though - we're just
> >>> prepared to do it for a couple of years in order to gather the data we
> >>> need to figure out the actual costs of running the program.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Nick.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Betsy
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 12 March 2016 at 23:24, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at python.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12.03.2016 08:55, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >>>>>>> As far as covering costs goes, I think an important aspect of that
> >>>>>>> will be to be clear that bundling carries an expectation of reduced
> >>>>>>> customisation of benefits, at least at the PSF level - hence the
> fee
> >>>>>>> discounts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure which fee discounts you are referring to here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I mean the proposal for distinct a la carte/regional/global rates for
> >>>>> the administration overhead - my working assumption from the start
> has
> >>>>> always been that conferences get their normal sponsorship amounts,
> and
> >>>>> we'd figure out some other way to cover the PSF's costs (whether that
> >>>>> was cross-subsidisation from PyCon US, covering it out of general
> >>>>> sponsorships, or applying an additional percentage to the bundles to
> >>>>> cover costs).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The reason I specifically like the "15/7.5/3" administration charge
> >>>>> structure is that:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * a self-sustaining program is preferable, since that provides more
> >>>>> scope for future hiring & grant making
> >>>>> * 50% and 80% are substantial enough discounts for potential sponsors
> >>>>> to appreciate them
> >>>>> * 20/10/4 feels too high, 10/5/2 feels too low, so 15/7.5/3 splits
> the
> >>>>> difference
> >>>>> * I except many of the PSF's costs in staff time to be incurred per
> >>>>> sponsor, rather than per event (registering with their supplier
> >>>>> management if they're not already PSF or PyCon sponsors, getting to
> >>>>> know the right points of contact within their event management
> >>>>> organisation, getting to know what they're generally interested in as
> >>>>> sponsor benefits, etc)
> >>>>> * for sponsors that opt for a bundle over a la carte, I'd still
> expect
> >>>>> their typical engagement with the smaller regional events to be low
> >>>>> (since they often won't have an on-site presence there - unless they
> >>>>> were planning to be involved in the event anyway, the cost in staff
> >>>>> time and travel would likely exceed the sponsorship)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Consider the global Platinum sponsorship, for example - the admin fee
> >>>>> discount there ends up being just over $9000. Compared to a more
> >>>>> selective a la carte sponsorship, that's likely going to mean a
> >>>>> Platinum sponsorship for each of the 3 or 4 lowest cost conferences
> >>>>> participating in the prospectus - those are often also going to be
> the
> >>>>> ones where the return on investment for large sponsors is smallest,
> >>>>> but the potential return on investment for the PSF in terms of
> growing
> >>>>> the Python community is highest (it's much easier for a 150 person
> >>>>> conference to grow to 300 people than it is for a 750 person
> >>>>> conference to grow to 1500).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Along those lines, I've posted a couple of comments in the document
> >>>>> suggesting a change in the way the administration charges for the
> >>>>> bundles are presented.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently, the discounts are baked into the percentage used to
> >>>>> calculate the the administration charge line item. I believe it would
> >>>>> be preferable to always list the administration charge at the a la
> >>>>> carte rate, and then explicitly list the fee discount as a separate
> >>>>> line. Using the global Platinum sponsorship as an example again,
> >>>>> that's currently presented as:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590
> >>>>> Program administration charge (3%): 2298
> >>>>> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78888
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd suggest instead presenting it as:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Funds distributed to conferences: 76590
> >>>>> Program administration charge (15%): 11488
> >>>>> Administration charge discount (80%): -9191
> >>>>> Cost to sponsoring organisation: 78887
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (In that particular case, the rounding works out slightly
> differently,
> >>>>> but that's at most a dollar either way)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Nick.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Betsy Waliszewski
> >>>> Python Software Foundation
> >>>> Event Coordinator / Administrator
> >>>> @betswaliszewski
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Betsy Waliszewski
> >> Python Software Foundation
> >> Event Coordinator / Administrator
> >> @betswaliszewski
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Marc-Andre Lemburg
> Director
> Python Software Foundation
> http://www.python.org/psf/
> http://www.malemburg.com/
>

-- 
Betsy Waliszewski
Python Software Foundation
Event Coordinator / Administrator
@betswaliszewski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/bundle-sponsorship-wg/attachments/20160412/886ad9e3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: International PyCon Prospectus.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1000074 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/bundle-sponsorship-wg/attachments/20160412/886ad9e3/attachment-0001.pdf>