[Theforum] sponsorships

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Tue Apr 30 00:50:46 CDT 2002

> From: "Daniel J. Cody" <djc at members.evolt.org>
> i'm pushing to make evolt self sustaining, yes. paypal has always been
> there, its just easier to use and explained now. mouse pads are a
> purchase, not so much a "I'm just donating" thing.

self-sustaining would require you to *not* pay the bills, then, no?

and the mouse pads really are a donation thing... i certainly am not
buying them because i need them... i know a few others echoed that
sentiment as well...

> > what if you don't like the new structure we're all creating here?
> > then do you keep paying every month to fund something you don't
> > like?
> i've been working on our new structure for about 2 months now, so
> err.. i think i'll like it.

it's a hypothetical... obviously this new structure could have the
power to do things you don't like... what then?  that's the thing,
how things are today isn't necessarily how they will be tomorrow...
we *do* have to plan for the worst-case, IMO...

> umm, well i'm trying to take one step right now. at a time. or
> something like that. its taken me about a month this so far, and
> hopefully can pick up steam if/when more people get on board with
> other ideas like a referal. what is 'real market demand'? like i said,
> i know its not the final answer, but i'm trying to take a step in the
> right direction.. *shrug*

my point was that the investment of time needed to turn around a few
mouse pads isn't quite efficient... we'll soon run out of branded
schwag to sell... i don't see that as a viable long-term solution,
just an occasional novelty...

> > - recognizing donations by individual people does exactly what you
> > want to avoid with corp sponsorships -- giving preferential
> > treatment... it also *does* create some reliance, people may expect
> > hugh to pony up again... if we truly want donations to be
> > altruistic, they should be anonymous and we shouldn't track who
> > sends in what...
> i'd say that having 100 $10 'sponsors' has a lot less reliance than 2
> $500 ones. if one of the 100 expects preferential treatment and
> doesn't get it, evolt is out $10. if one of 2, $500 - thats a lot more
> reliance on a smaller number of subscribers, no?

again, reliance is one thing... you don't *have* to rely on the
donations, but to get them in and alleviate the burden is a nice
thing... and if the rules are stated up-front, the 2 $500 people
shouldn't have any reason to expect anything...

you're building an argument based on walking into it blind, not
telling people how the donations work, and coming to rely on the
donations exclusively... none of those would or should be the case...

> > - some of us don't do the financial donation because we give plenty
> > already... i give a few hours a day to the community, which at my
> > hourly rates is a hella lot... you listed your contributions to
> > evolt.org in another email, and mine can easily be as long...  i've
> > also been working my arse off trying to find another way to get
> > money in *without* relying on my wallet, or yours... *that's* my
> > contribution... if you're going to guilt *anyone* about donating (by
> > saying you're disappointed and then saying your heart is filled with
> > joy by hugh's donation, and this isn't just me talking), you can
> > stick it up your arse because you are creating *exactly* the kind of
> > environment you claim you want to avoid...
> i wasn't trying to make it a competition. and i wasn't trying to guilt
> anyone, so relax. i was just trying to point out, in the most non-bad
> way i could, what the situation was and how i felt about it.

i know you weren't trying to, but your statement has that effect...
you may not see it because you want to recognize someone's donations,
but that *is* preferential treatment, and your statement of
disappointment bolsters it showing disdain for those who *didn't*
step up and donate like your example...

IOW, you have to see how this can all be perceived, and you have to
understand that we're already walking down the road of favoritism
based on donations...

i would even bet the names of those who donated are people you know
better than the rest of us know them, which could suggest there is
already something in place (not by design) that garners favoritism...

i don't believe this exists by design, but i do suspect it exists...

you may think i'm overreacting, but this is how it starts, and i've
got a good track record of spotting this stuff early on...

> > which brings us back to the first point...
> >
> > IOW, you're already walking down the path you want to avoid, even if
> > you don't see it... you're just doing it with people instead of
> > corps, which, in case you haven't noticed by the threads of the last
> > week or so, can be a problematic thing...
> not IOW, in your words. what am i missing in the last week or so on
> thelist?

yes, in my words, but if you choose to ignore it now, before we even
get the ball rolling on monies, it can come back to but us *all* in
the arse...

do you think i'm nuts on this topic?  do you think my ideas are
completely wrong?

as for the last week, i wasn't talking about thelist, i was talking
about here, where there is a concern about all the evolt.org assets,
controls, and de facto power in one person's hands... couple that
with that monies flowing to that one person, and it throws a red flag
up in many peoples' brains...

this is the part where you accuse me of being over-sensitive and
defend youself unnecessarily... but this is where i remind that i am
playing devil's advocate and will continue to raise these
counterpoints to the status quo...
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
ISBN: 1904151035

More information about the theforum mailing list