Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship

[Chris Croughton]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:46:12AM +0100, Marc Eberhard wrote:

> I'm personnally more and more convinced, that we should rather turn a
> sponsor down than being abused for their own PR. This will loose us some
> donations, but I'm more than willing to accept this.

I think that is the way to go, once you start letting the 'sponsors'
have control in return for the money you are getting tied in with their
organisation.  What if a sponsor originally meets your criteria for
advertising them and then changes?  Do you give back the money?  No, far
better to say "this is how you will be shown, just like any other
donor".

> It also avoids all the trouble of the right wording and size of boxes on
> printed material right from the beginning. It's a trade-off. Do we want
> donations under any circumstances or do we want donors to accept our strict
> rules?

If they want PR, let them take out explicit advertising and pay for it.
That's what many amateur organisations do, sponsors are listed but if
someone wants to take out a half-page ad or whatever in your materials
then (a) they pay for it and (b) you are free to say "sorry, that ad
doesn't meet our standards".  Plus you can say "sorry, we haven't got
room in this issue of the newsletter (or whatever), how about next
time?"  That way you keep control but the people willing to pay also
know where they stand.

Chris C