From betsy at python.org  Thu Mar 10 18:38:32 2016
From: betsy at python.org (Betsy Waliszewski)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:38:32 -0800
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
Message-ID: <CAKMnukriaEijR=gsOcC=M=PXRGW1vZ0eJgZKZ95EhJGa1UQdwA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I've been working closely with the EuroPython designer on a redesign of our
prospectus. I think it's finally ready for the team to take a look. There
are still a few tweaks that need to happen, but it looks pretty good, I
think.

Unfortunately, we did not get any takers from the initial round of emails,
but that was before we had this nifty new design. I would also like to
revisit offering a discount, as that was a comment I received from Red Hat.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Betsy

-- 
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/20160310/b861d8cb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: International_PyCon_Prospectus_2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 952396 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/bundle-sponsorship-wg/attachments/20160310/b861d8cb/attachment-0001.pdf>

From mal at python.org  Fri Mar 11 03:36:16 2016
From: mal at python.org (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:36:16 +0100
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
In-Reply-To: <CAKMnukriaEijR=gsOcC=M=PXRGW1vZ0eJgZKZ95EhJGa1UQdwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKMnukriaEijR=gsOcC=M=PXRGW1vZ0eJgZKZ95EhJGa1UQdwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56E28380.5020506@python.org>

On 11.03.2016 00:38, Betsy Waliszewski wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been working closely with the EuroPython designer on a redesign of our
> prospectus. I think it's finally ready for the team to take a look. There
> are still a few tweaks that need to happen, but it looks pretty good, I
> think.

Very nice indeed :-)

> Unfortunately, we did not get any takers from the initial round of emails,
> but that was before we had this nifty new design. I would also like to
> revisit offering a discount, as that was a comment I received from Red Hat.
> 
> Let me know what you think.

What kind of discount are you referring to ?

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
Director
Python Software Foundation
http://www.python.org/psf/
http://www.malemburg.com/

From betsy at python.org  Fri Mar 11 10:18:28 2016
From: betsy at python.org (Betsy Waliszewski)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:18:28 -0800
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
Message-ID: <CAKMnukowS=HM7PfF9Cv9vVJWQRmEsh5nNVVKJN4C0Qj+UEg-iA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:36 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at python.org> wrote:

> On 11.03.2016 00:38, Betsy Waliszewski wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've been working closely with the EuroPython designer on a redesign of
> our
> > prospectus. I think it's finally ready for the team to take a look. There
> > are still a few tweaks that need to happen, but it looks pretty good, I
> > think.
>
> Very nice indeed :-)
>
> > Unfortunately, we did not get any takers from the initial round of
> emails,
> > but that was before we had this nifty new design. I would also like to
> > revisit offering a discount, as that was a comment I received from Red
> Hat.
> >
> > Let me know what you think.
>
> What kind of discount are you referring to ?
>

It's in the original prospectus that you all worked on before I came on
board.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l2U25lOGOKg5Zrt-UT7KJo9TnhIMAbRd9WEPn1_nA_I/edit#heading=h.e5asua79fjr8

There was mention of a discount on the *program administration fees* if a
company signed up for all of the events. That's the only discount we can
offer, unless we want to offer a discount on PyCon US.

The comment I got was "why should we sign up with the PSF and pay 15% more
when we can sign up on our own." Apparently, the offer to manage the
initial paperwork isn't enough to motivate a company signing up :-(.

Maybe we need to rethink what the value is of what we have to offer.

Betsy

>
> --
> 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/20160311/1c26747d/attachment.html>

From mal at python.org  Fri Mar 11 14:12:16 2016
From: mal at python.org (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:12:16 +0100
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
In-Reply-To: <CAKMnukowS=HM7PfF9Cv9vVJWQRmEsh5nNVVKJN4C0Qj+UEg-iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKMnukowS=HM7PfF9Cv9vVJWQRmEsh5nNVVKJN4C0Qj+UEg-iA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56E31890.8040505@python.org>

On 11.03.2016 16:18, Betsy Waliszewski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:36 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at python.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 11.03.2016 00:38, Betsy Waliszewski wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've been working closely with the EuroPython designer on a redesign of
>> our
>>> prospectus. I think it's finally ready for the team to take a look. There
>>> are still a few tweaks that need to happen, but it looks pretty good, I
>>> think.
>>
>> Very nice indeed :-)
>>
>>> Unfortunately, we did not get any takers from the initial round of
>> emails,
>>> but that was before we had this nifty new design. I would also like to
>>> revisit offering a discount, as that was a comment I received from Red
>> Hat.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think.
>>
>> What kind of discount are you referring to ?
>>
> 
> It's in the original prospectus that you all worked on before I came on
> board.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l2U25lOGOKg5Zrt-UT7KJo9TnhIMAbRd9WEPn1_nA_I/edit#heading=h.e5asua79fjr8
> 
> There was mention of a discount on the *program administration fees* if a
> company signed up for all of the events. That's the only discount we can
> offer, unless we want to offer a discount on PyCon US.
> 
> The comment I got was "why should we sign up with the PSF and pay 15% more
> when we can sign up on our own." Apparently, the offer to manage the
> initial paperwork isn't enough to motivate a company signing up :-(.
> 
> Maybe we need to rethink what the value is of what we have to offer.

Well, ask them whether they are up to finding, reaching out to,
signing up, and (most importantly) adding 10+ different conference
organizers to their procurement systems :-) (oh, and if they still
don't buy it, mention that they'll have to deal with orgs and
VAT in 10+ different countries)

Instead they just have to deal with a single billing partner:
the PSF, registered in the US, and we'll take of the rest.

The 15% admin fee is well worth the reduced overhead they
will have on their side. In fact, it will probably not fully
cover our costs; and we don't have to set up procurement
systems for those conferences.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
Director
Python Software Foundation
http://www.python.org/psf/
http://www.malemburg.com/

From ncoghlan at gmail.com  Sat Mar 12 02:55:52 2016
From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:55:52 +1000
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
In-Reply-To: <56E31890.8040505@python.org>
References: <CAKMnukowS=HM7PfF9Cv9vVJWQRmEsh5nNVVKJN4C0Qj+UEg-iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <56E31890.8040505@python.org>
Message-ID: <CADiSq7diM5TVi46dO-5DVuu0BX1BvZof6gbc8jnVX7FrUBxVUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the update Betsy, this looks excellent! I added a few
suggested tweaks to the introductory section of the doc.

On 12 March 2016 at 05:12, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at python.org> wrote:
> Well, ask them whether they are up to finding, reaching out to,
> signing up, and (most importantly) adding 10+ different conference
> organizers to their procurement systems :-) (oh, and if they still
> don't buy it, mention that they'll have to deal with orgs and
> VAT in 10+ different countries)

We already do - one of the benefits of Red Hat being so distributed is
that local conference sponsorship wrangling can frequently be
delegated to the in-country Red Hat offices (and in most cases the
folks requesting the sponsorships are Red Hatters either on the
organising committees or friends with members of the organising
committees, and hence relatively happy to jump through the hoops of
our supplier management system). As a result, compared to actually
*running* offices in 35+ countries, also sponsoring community
conferences in each of those countries isn't that bothersome.

That was my original motivation to advocate for the discounts in the
original prospectus draft - I was pretty sure we'd be prepared to
accept a 3% overhead for the "All the PyCons" option, but not a 15%
one. The potential for anchoring prospective sponsors on 15% for the a
la carte admin fees, and then using the 50% and 80% fee discounts to
help upsell them on the bundles was then an added bonus.

> Instead they just have to deal with a single billing partner:
> the PSF, registered in the US, and we'll take of the rest.
>
> The 15% admin fee is well worth the reduced overhead they
> will have on their side. In fact, it will probably not fully
> cover our costs; and we don't have to set up procurement
> systems for those conferences.

I think Red Hat's a pretty unique case - most multinational
organisations Red Hat's size or larger won't have our experience
working with open source community conferences (so "we deal with the
community organisers so you don't have to" works better as a pitch),
while most other organisations that have a similar amount of
experience working with open source communities don't have our
international footprint (so "we help you reach communities you
otherwise couldn't" works better as a pitch).

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. Our main roles here should be to:

* provide an easy way for potential sponsor organisations to survey a
list of available Python conference sponsorships
* handle redistribution of the funding from sponsor organisations to
community conference organisers
* making connections between conference organisers and sponsor
representatives to discuss customisation options

We don't want to end up in situations where a PSF staff member is
relaying information back and forth between conference organisers and
sponsor representatives - beyond the financial side of things, we want
to be encouraging folks to work together directly.

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

From mal at python.org  Sat Mar 12 08:24:16 2016
From: mal at python.org (M.-A. Lemburg)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:24:16 +0100
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
In-Reply-To: <CADiSq7diM5TVi46dO-5DVuu0BX1BvZof6gbc8jnVX7FrUBxVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKMnukowS=HM7PfF9Cv9vVJWQRmEsh5nNVVKJN4C0Qj+UEg-iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <56E31890.8040505@python.org>
 <CADiSq7diM5TVi46dO-5DVuu0BX1BvZof6gbc8jnVX7FrUBxVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56E41880.4010600@python.org>

On 12.03.2016 08:55, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Thanks for the update Betsy, this looks excellent! I added a few
> suggested tweaks to the introductory section of the doc.
> 
> On 12 March 2016 at 05:12, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at python.org> wrote:
>> Well, ask them whether they are up to finding, reaching out to,
>> signing up, and (most importantly) adding 10+ different conference
>> organizers to their procurement systems :-) (oh, and if they still
>> don't buy it, mention that they'll have to deal with orgs and
>> VAT in 10+ different countries)
> 
> We already do - one of the benefits of Red Hat being so distributed is
> that local conference sponsorship wrangling can frequently be
> delegated to the in-country Red Hat offices (and in most cases the
> folks requesting the sponsorships are Red Hatters either on the
> organising committees or friends with members of the organising
> committees, and hence relatively happy to jump through the hoops of
> our supplier management system). As a result, compared to actually
> *running* offices in 35+ countries, also sponsoring community
> conferences in each of those countries isn't that bothersome.

Yes, I know. RedHat is special in this respect. Other companies
are not set up for this, though. (I know from EuroPython, but don't
want to put out names here).

> That was my original motivation to advocate for the discounts in the
> original prospectus draft - I was pretty sure we'd be prepared to
> accept a 3% overhead for the "All the PyCons" option, but not a 15%
> one. The potential for anchoring prospective sponsors on 15% for the a
> la carte admin fees, and then using the 50% and 80% fee discounts to
> help upsell them on the bundles was then an added bonus.

It may very well be that the sponsorship bundles are not
right for RedHat, but other companies do have the issues
I mentioned. Many of the larger ones have dedicated procurement
companies to work around these issues, but those cost them
a lot as well.

>> Instead they just have to deal with a single billing partner:
>> the PSF, registered in the US, and we'll take of the rest.
>>
>> The 15% admin fee is well worth the reduced overhead they
>> will have on their side. In fact, it will probably not fully
>> cover our costs; and we don't have to set up procurement
>> systems for those conferences.
> 
> I think Red Hat's a pretty unique case - most multinational
> organisations Red Hat's size or larger won't have our experience
> working with open source community conferences (so "we deal with the
> community organisers so you don't have to" works better as a pitch),
> while most other organisations that have a similar amount of
> experience working with open source communities don't have our
> international footprint (so "we help you reach communities you
> otherwise couldn't" works better as a pitch).
> 
> 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.

If you mean that conferences will give the PSF discounts on
sponsor packages the PSF resells, I can tell you (as one of
the organizers) that at least EuroPython is not set up for this.

We'd literally have to increase sponsorship prices to allow for
such discounts and our regular sponsors wouldn't buy into those
raised prices, so such discount bundles would of no added value
to us.

Unlike PyCon US, EuroPython and several (probably most) other
Python conferences are run more or less at cost, so there isn't
a lot of flexibility in terms of pricing available.

For EuroPython we're aiming at changing this a little, since
we want to create a less risky organizational setup, but it
will take time.

> Our main roles here should be to:
> 
> * provide an easy way for potential sponsor organisations to survey a
> list of available Python conference sponsorships
> * handle redistribution of the funding from sponsor organisations to
> community conference organisers
> * making connections between conference organisers and sponsor
> representatives to discuss customisation options
> 
> We don't want to end up in situations where a PSF staff member is
> relaying information back and forth between conference organisers and
> sponsor representatives - beyond the financial side of things, we want
> to be encouraging folks to work together directly.

Sure, we're only here to help with the procurement process
and I think we're reasonably well set up for this. All the
details would have to be communicated directly between the
parties - we'd only enable that communication.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
Director
Python Software Foundation
http://www.python.org/psf/
http://www.malemburg.com/

From ncoghlan at gmail.com  Sat Mar 12 09:28:38 2016
From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 00:28:38 +1000
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
In-Reply-To: <56E41880.4010600@python.org>
References: <CAKMnukowS=HM7PfF9Cv9vVJWQRmEsh5nNVVKJN4C0Qj+UEg-iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <56E31890.8040505@python.org>
 <CADiSq7diM5TVi46dO-5DVuu0BX1BvZof6gbc8jnVX7FrUBxVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <56E41880.4010600@python.org>
Message-ID: <CADiSq7dDLn=ZcPJCa0-PU=Mv8mwAA2S1UB3xzNhqts+puA931A@mail.gmail.com>

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

From betsy at python.org  Mon Mar 14 14:10:21 2016
From: betsy at python.org (Betsy Waliszewski)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:10:21 -0700
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
Message-ID: <CAKMnukqidvfbvkBDciftWpLRPuW77nrTJgx7XDtVr0NNedOoPA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Nick,

We're not using the google doc where you posted your comments. The PDF I
sent around is our working document. That being said, we do need to
incorporate new language more clearly identifying the benefits and whatever
discounts we decide to offer.

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. Granted, we only sent the prospectus to 6-7 companies, so we
don't have a lot of data to look at.

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.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/bundle-sponsorship-wg/attachments/20160314/4ad48413/attachment.html>

From ncoghlan at gmail.com  Mon Mar 14 23:30:52 2016
From: ncoghlan at gmail.com (Nick Coghlan)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:30:52 +1000
Subject: [Bundle-sponsorship-wg] International PyCon Prospectus
In-Reply-To: <CAKMnukqidvfbvkBDciftWpLRPuW77nrTJgx7XDtVr0NNedOoPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKMnukqidvfbvkBDciftWpLRPuW77nrTJgx7XDtVr0NNedOoPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADiSq7cvyfJsAONUcs1ZjLgQuET6+wrRBrs0tZmFby8iVdRzKw@mail.gmail.com>

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