I was recently in a conversation with several people that had previously organized one or more community events. The topic evolved into a discussion of Sponsors, and eventually, fund raising. Being able to adequately raise the funds necessary is critical to producing a successful event. Many vendors will readily provide products for raffles and give-aways (SWAG), but the success of the event hangs on being able to raise cold, hard, cash. Venues and equipment have to be rented, refreshments and lunches purchases -and insurers  seem to always require payment. Being able to draw upon the supporting community of vendors for sponsorship funding is essential to producing free community events.

I propose that community events embrace transparency and provide a public accounting of Sponsor funds.

One of the topics we discussed is an issue that seems to be just below the surface in the community at large -it’s there, and no one really wants to bring it into the open. (Andy Warren wrote about the subject in this post just a few months ago.) The issue we discussed is about financial transparency -including what to do with excess funds after the event. And further, is it necessary or appropriate that all funds raised in the name of an event be expended solely for that event? It was even emphatically stated that it was good to over subscribe sponsorship for the event and re-direct the excess funds to other purposes. Some adamently postulated that intentionally over selling sponsorships allow funds to be used to support other seeming worthwhile community activities.

And I thought -just hold on now. To me, that’s approaching being misleading, if not outright deceptive to sponsors -and to the community at large.

If organizers deliberately use the event fund raising as a cover to gain funds for other purposes, no matter how worthy, there is a real danger that sponsors will stop giving money.

My concern is this: If we approach a potential sponsor for funds to produce ‘Event A’, in my mind, the sponsor has an expectation that the funds go to produce ‘Event A’. If some of the funds are diverted to support activities B, C, D, etc., sponsors may feel that they are being unfairly used to support activities that they may not have chosen to support outright. Or at the very least, they were not provided the opportunity to make a rational decision to support activities B, C, or D. Vendors vote with their dollars -they give money to events that make sense for them. They are calculating the ROI for access to the attendees -factoring in the competitive environment with other sponsors. More sponsors means less access. When events are over subscribed, the calculation becomes skewed. When unknown amounts of sponsor money is diverted to other purposes, the calculation becomes almost worthless.

If organizers deliberately use the event fund raising as a cover to gain funds for other purposes, no matter how worthy, there is a real danger that sponsors will stop giving money. If that happens, everyone loses.

I propose that community events embrace transparency and provide a public accounting of Sponsor funds. Granted, there may be valid reasons to not disclose individual Sponsor contributions, and you will notice that is not being called for here. I propose to break this down into just a few simple categories -such as:

Total Received, less

1. Venue, Equipment Rental & Insurance
2. Banking Fees and Taxes (including Paypal fees)
3. Printing, Signage & Misc Supplies
4. Volunteer Expenses (Shirts, pre/post Event, etc.)
5. Speaker Expenses (Gifts, Shirts, Dinner, etc.)
6. Event Food & Refreshments
7. Attendee SWAG (Shirts, etc.)
8. Attendee After Event

Amount Left Over

And then provide a statement of how the left over funds (if any) will be used to support the community. This level of transparency will allow sponsors to understand how their funds are being used.

I recognize that there may not be simple agreement to this level  of public disclosure, that situations can be complex, and that there may be valid justification for some financial obscurity. Let’s start a public discussion about what is best for the community at large. To continue the status quo, where there are below the surface grumblings, questions, and even suspicions, is not good for the community at large.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.

• Should all funds raised for an event be spent solely for that event?
• And should event organizers be more transparent about funding AND expenditures?

(The recent SQLSaturday Oregon 2011 Financials are published here.)

… it is in the best interest of the tech community to accept that contact from sponsors is a necessary part of the exchange for free community events

A few weeks back, I wrote a piece Paying for Free encouraging community support of sponsors. In that article, I opined that it is in the best interest of the tech community to accept that contact from sponsors is a necessary part of the exchange for free community events. Sponsors provide the funding that makes it possible to have free community events. These free community events, such as SQLSaturday, Code Camp, Bar Camp, Word Camp, etc., provide opportunities for working professions to pick up new information and technique, as well as network with others. We attend knowing that these community events are not merely marketing exercises -as they most likely would be if left entirely up to the vendors to produce.

I suggested that when you register for a free community event, that you opt in to allow the sponsors to contact you after the event. Others added that visiting the sponsors table and chatting with any on-site representatives was important. We have to remember that sponsors are providing the funds necessary for the event, and that there is an implicit expectation for access to attendees in order to present their message. By opting in for after event contacts from the sponsors, you are communicating that you understand the implicit exchange, and are willing to give the sponsors an opportunity to present you with their message.

I have only positive experiences when asking to be unsubscribed or removed from a mail list.

While there seemed to be general support, a few folks discussed their historically bad experiences trying to get removed from mail lists. In a few notes, it there seemed to even be disdain for the very concept of the implicit exchange. But many acknowledged that they choose to opt-out without giving due consideration to both the changes in mail list management AND sponsor’s needs. They indicated that they were re-awakened to the implicit exchange and would be more willing to opt-in in the future.

While I agree that in the past, it may have been difficult to get oneself removed from mail lists, the situation has matured, and reputable vendors (backed by legal changes) recognize their responsibility to allow someone to easily unsubscribe from their mail lists. I contend that in the past several years, I have only positive experiences when asking to be unsubscribed or removed from a mail list. In our social relationships, when we accept a dinner invitation to a friend or relative’s home, we understand and accept the implicit exchange that we will then give our hosts due consideration to listen to their stories. When we don’t want to hear their stories, we don’t accept the dinner invitation. Understanding the implicit exchange is really quite simple, and a hallmark of a well balanced person.

So my challenge to you is thus:

In exchange for having the opportunity to attend free community events, will you give sponsors a chance to prove their sincerity and opt-in to an after event mailing -knowing full well that you can easily have yourself removed from future mailings if the sponsor’s product or message does not fit your needs?

If you are not willing to accept the challenge, then you must accept that you are a ‘user’, someone that just takes without honoring implicit relationship based exchanges. Does that really reflect who you are?