On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Fabio Pliger <fabio.pli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2012/1/17 Giovanni Bajo <ra...@develer.com>
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > _Note:_ I'm not including tickets revenue in this consideration as we
>> > > decided
>> > > that we wanted a conference affordable to everybody keeping the prices
>> > > as low
>> > > as we could. Thus tickets average revenue was almost 0.
>> >
>> > I think there's still some room to ramp up the tickets prices in
>> > order to make the budget look healthier. EuroPython is the second
>> > most important Python conference we have, right after PyCon US,
>> > so you can safely use their (low) prices are guideline:
>> >
>> > https://us.pycon.org/2012/registration/
>> >
>> > Capping the number of attendees as you've done in 2011 and starting
>> > registration early is also a good way to make you feel more secure about
>> > the numbers.
>>
>> Ticket price is always a hard call :)
>>
>> Since we've sold out in 2011, and most people seem to be very satisfied
>> with the event, I think that it would sound reasonable to increase
>> prices, since we might expect more people willing to come, and at the
>> same time we can't really host 1000 people in the venue anyway (as much
>> as we would like to).
>>
>> On the other hand, I like the idea of keeping the price low and
>> affordable for everybody, but maybe we should probably work more on
>> grants to help that side of the problem. I actually like the PyCon US
>> model of "everybody pays and everybody can ask for a grant", but I'm
>> split about it.
>
>
> I do agree that it's hard take decisions on this. My heart says to keep
> prices low (at least for students) but... my mind disagrees. Probably we
> should apply more of the Pycon US model on Europython.
This is a very hard balance to make, and depends largely on the
Sponsorship level available. For PyCon US we created a 'Corporate'
level of registration which we do not take a loss on, while all other
levels of registration represent a loss for the conference. We have a
substantial contingent of corporate attendance. That is it is the
corporations which are paying for their employees to attend, and they
can afford to spend a bit more to subsidize the conference for
everyone else. EuroPython does the same thing, but the differential
between the levels is higher for PyCon US (if my exchange rate math is
correct). In the end we have Corporate, Hobbiest, and Student rates,
and we try to have a good mix between them to keep that section of the
budget sheet balanced. One corporate registration will cover the loss
on ~1.5 Students attending or ~2 Hobbiests at non-earlybird rates. The
margins are half that on earlybird. As the bulk of our attendance is
earlybird registrants, we make up the remaining difference in
sponsorship.
The Grant money then comes from the sponsorship pool. The better the
sponsorship, the more we can grant. The key here is that each free
registration costs the conference more than the opportunity loss, due
to the attendance cap, so the budget projections get messy. That is in
the budget, we allocate how many free registrations we expect to give
out, and then subtract that from the projected registration revenue in
the budget, so each grant registration really costs closer to 2
registrations on our P&L sheet. In the end it is just book keeping,
but it can make your head hurt. Having a good system for managing your
budget, and staying on top of it is critical.
>>
>>
>> > I also wonder how we could help in getting the number of sponsors
>> > bumped up to higher levels.
>>
>> One thing that really strikes us as very odd is that there is a large
>> difference in the amount of money that companies seem willing to invest,
>> compared to PyCon US. This is especially glaring when it happens to be
>> the *same* companies investing something like five times more in PyCon
>> US compared to EuroPython.
>>
>> I think that part of this can be justified with the USA being sort of
>> the core of technology in these days, so it might be that the total
>> amount of business being done in USA is so larger than Europe that it
>> reflects also in our sponsorships; moreover, for recruiting, it might be
>> easier for company to recruit among developers living in a single
>> country (USA) rather than living across several different countries
>> (Europe).
>>
>> So I think the first thing that would help is that the PSF could push
>> EuroPython sponsorships packs to PyCon USA sponsors. We might be still
>> in time for this, but I think it would work better if EuroPython
>> sponsorships were proposed together with PyCon US sponsorship; like "buy
>> this pack and with X% extra you can be present in Europe as well". Food
>> for thought for next year.
>
>
> I've thought about it many many times and everytime I end up not finding a
> satisfying solution for this topic. I'd really love to find a solution for
> this but at the moment we couldn't do this ( i guess ). Let me clarify.
> Europython is organized by non profit associations ( Python Italia, Pycon
> UK, etc.. ) that reinvest any profit to next year conference edition. Pycon,
> on the other hand, is organized by the PSF and the conference profits ( and
> losses ) go to the PSF. Pycon is one of the most important economic
> resources for the PSF as well. Pycon US and the PSF are tied together. The
> PSF then uses the money from Pycon to help other python conferences and
> communities with grants and sponsorships ( just like it did for Europython
> and all the other Pycons around the world ). With these premises, how can we
> find a way to build up sponsorship packs among both conferences? I'm CCing
> this email to Jesse Noller who can speak for Pycon organizers team on this.
This has been discussed at both the organizers list, and switching my
hats, at the PSF board level as well. The accounting makes it neigh
impossible to pool the sponsorship inflow. As you say, we can only
really have the money that is feed into the PSF via PyCon and other
sources, back out to other non-profits like EuroPython, PyCon AU, and
all the other conferences via sponsorship packages from those
conferences. We already do this whenever possible, but the PSF is
limited in the funds we have on hand and must stay within its budget.
PyCon US, while it is getting historic levels of sponsorship, also has
historic costs due to the new location, which is a draw for
sponsorship, and the increased size. With that said, it is the plan of
the PSF to use any profit from the conference for funding other
conferences world wide as well as other incubator projects.
> One consideration has to be done. With the Pycon sponsors stack overflow
> this year it'd be a good occasion to take contacts with those sponsors that
> didn't come in time.
This is a very sticky issue, which there have been many conversations
on. I will let Jesse Noller address this. Some private communications
with the relevant people on the EuroPython end is most likely the best
channel for this.
>
>>
>>
>> > A lot of companies are looking for Python
>> > developers, so recruiting is certainly one of the key arguments for
>> > sponsors to invest in EuroPython.
>>
>> Recruiting works very well; our sponsorship packs are divided by
>> sponsorship goals instead of being raising levels, and the recruiting
>> packs are surely very popular.
>>
>> We did a recruiting session, and we got very positive feedback from the
>> companies that joined it (both immediately at the event and afterwards),
>> but maybe there's something more we can do for facilitate recruiting?
>>
>> > Another is product announcements
>> > and presentation. Perhaps you could make those two aspects (even) more
>> > interesting for sponsors in order to attract more sponsors.
>> > Another argument I often hear from smaller companies is that
>> > manning a booth at the conference is too costly for them
>> > (not because of the booth signup fee, but because of the
>> > staffing costs). Perhaps having a poster session or some
>> > flat panel LCDs in the conference halls for unmanned
>> > presentation would help make sponsoring more interesting to
>> > those companies ?!
>>
>> Yes, that's an idea. For companies that can't join the conference we
>> usually suggest to prepare a brochure for the conference bag, but maybe
>> the poster session is something we should attempt (for both sponsors and
>> regular partecipants).
>>
>
> +1
lt;dr : up the ante on the Expo Hall. Cater to sponsors 1:1, make them
part of the conference, not just a sponsor. Have a form of 'grants'
for small companies as well as attendees.
I am going to channel Jesse here for a bit. It helps that I have
worked sponsorship for other conferences. Frankly it is a job I never,
ever want to have any part of again; it is too much work, and I do not
have the patience for it.
We have had great success with Poster sessions at PyCon US. We will
have ~35 Poster sessions this year. But these are mostly not from the
sponsors, thought they are encouraged to submit posters, and talks as
well. Some have balked at not getting preferential treatment for their
proposals, but they are in the minority. We have tried to do the
recorded presentation on a monitor thing, but it always falls flat.
With all the other dynamic things going on at the conference,
attendees do not want to stand around and watch something recorded.
There is the feel of 'I can do that when I am at home alone, I have
better things to do that I can only do here.' Just post it online.
Un-manned posters do work better, but do not get the traffic that a
manned poster gets. These need to be clearly marked, as if it is an
interesting poster, attendees get mad when they come back later and
there is no one to talk to about the poster. They feel their time was
wasted.
For small companies which can not attend but would like to, ask why
they can not attend, and try to get them there anyway. For small
startups we have Startup Row, where we basically give a grant for the
startup to attend. This gives the startup exposure, and also helps
balance out against some of the more corporate sponsors in the Hall.
They are part of the community as well, and the hope is that in future
years, they will become a full sponsor. This has paid off in spades
for PyCon both to keep the community feel, and to bring in new
sponsorship; both from previous startups, and from their competitors.
The key is to cater the sponsorship to the needs of the sponsor; make
them feel that they are an integral part of the conference and in
truth really do do it. Once they feel like they are part of the
conference, not some add-on, they will want to give their money over
to take part. The needs of sponsors in Europe will be different from
those of sponsors in the US. Find out what they are and cater directly
to them. If they need more 'free' passes, but don't need banner or
insert space, negotiate. Or go the other way. Or maybe they have an
idea for doing something you never thought of. Saying 'is there
anything we are not offing that you would like us to offer' opens many
doors even if the answer is 'no'. Jesse made a promotion for sponsors
to 'turn in' their free passes to the grant program for additional
advertizing in the program and elsewhere; upping community cred. Maybe
two small companies can share a booth, making connections between them
before the conference; if there is a good mesh this can be an
additional perk. Maybe it is bag inserts, and no booth, or getting a
booth, but passing on free passes, etc.
This is never easy, and I know we have turned down some very large
amounts of money because we would not give out attendee information,
or share information about our other sponsors, or compromised the 'no
special treatment, everybody pays' rules. It is much, much more hands
on work, talking ad nauseum to the sponsors creating a rapport that
goes well beyond sponsorship. But over the years this has paid off in
spades. It is about the long haul. Jesse Noller spends about 15 hours
a week on new sponsorship, and that does not count the work once he
has gotten the sponsor, nor the years of ground work that Van Lindberg
put in. He started working on sponsorship for 2012 AT the 2011
conference last year and has not stopped since. He worked with Van
before that to pass the torch. Thankfully his employer agreed to pay
him to work part time on PyCon.
I do not believe EuroPython needs this level of effort. We have worked
up to this level over the past 4-5 years as the conference has grown
to require it. Nor do I believe EuroPython is at some tipping point,
at some great risk, as some of the comments give the impression. It
may require staying in one location for an additional year to shore
things up, and get the foundation built to the next level, but even
that I am not convinced of. We had a similar issue back in 2006/2007
where we had gotten to the size that we needed to think more than 1-2
years in the future, and we were less than a year out from the next
conference. We put out the call, and people stepped up. We planned 4
years in advance, and got it done. The Montreal group put together a
fantastic bid last year and we are set through 2015. Sounding the
alarm is important, but now that it has been sounded, I expect people
will rally.
-Doug
>
> --
> Fabio Pliger
> linkedin http://it.linkedin.com/in/fabiopliger
> twitter http://twitter.com/b_smoke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Europython-improve mailing list
> Europython-improve@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython-improve
>
_______________________________________________
Europython-improve mailing list
Europython-improve@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/europython-improve
