Sponsorship Opportunity

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 03 October 08 1:04 pm

Since a lot of the uncertainty expressed here seems to be over the nature of the specific sponsor, could we consider a temporary Senate of interested parties who could be told who the sponsor is, under strict agreements of confidentiality?

If that knowlege allays the fears of some of the nay-sayers, it might make a difference to the general opinion.

Obviously, I volunteer!

totalube · Post by **totalube** » 03 October 08 1:29 pm

Sorry, but I don't know how to quote from multiple messages, so I will do the best I can.

As to the example of the the APE project with groundspeak (or the Jeep TB).

Are these similar to what is being proposed? If it is I still see some differences which are important.

Firstly, GC was already set up and financial when these project came about, they already had their own money to run the site and therefore were in a stronger bargaining position. GCA isn't in the same position. It feels like GCA is taking a big jump into marketing.

And second, those were quite low key releases, we don't know the extend of the marketing that the client will want. It may be limited to a small part of the population, or be a large scale advertising campaign. Again we need to know as much as possible.

I agree with PBL, that a few more people need to know the particulars. I would also volunteer to help out, even if it means signing a confidentiality agreement (signed a few already

).

Before we go into this we really need to think about incorporation, otherwise it will just be a few volunteers that make the decisions for the group. I know that we are meant to keep the subject of incorporation/association out of this thread, but without establishing that first, we may be taking a risk going down the path of sponsorship. Also I think if GCA were incorporated, we would be much more appealing to other potential sponsors. As it is I can see why businesses would not want to deal with GCA in it's current form.

It would also help with legal issues with this deal otherwise will C@W be taking the responsibility for this deal. It is not something I think he should do.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 October 08 1:39 pm

Lucy wrote:Just some points, if I may play devils advocate, and to clear some things up from the OP.

Well summarised, thank you.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 October 08 1:41 pm

Snuva wrote:I hope it will inform another round of negotiation with the potential sponsor rather than the result being the deal being walked away from.

Unless we get an overwhelming NO, then I would envisage that would be a great opportunity to present our concerns and see how we can agree to ally the fears of the community.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 October 08 1:45 pm

delboy1203 wrote:One last thing. Maybe you should set up a poll to vote on this matter. There are probably quite a few people out there who have an opinion but would prefer not write anything here.

I didn't set a poll because Yes, No, Other was too restrictive. Once we get all the issues out on the table, then with the resultant discussions it might be worthwhile going to a poll at that point.

Polls typically at GCA don't result on a lot of votes.

20 for and 20 against, while a 50/50 split does not represent the community.

We have 8000 members, 550 active posters in the last 6 months, 1,300 readers in the last 6 months.

40 out of any of those numbers is not representative. That's why I would like a Senate with a representative from each state / territory, agreed by the state members to flesh out the details and make the call.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 October 08 1:47 pm

Papa Bear_Left wrote:Since a lot of the uncertainty expressed here seems to be over the nature of the specific sponsor, could we consider a temporary Senate of interested parties who could be told who the sponsor is, under strict agreements of confidentiality?

If that knowlege allays the fears of some of the nay-sayers, it might make a difference to the general opinion.

Obviously, I volunteer!

A most excellent idea. How about someone start another thread, referring to this one where they call for temporary nominations to a Senate t find out more about the sponsor. More than one nomination would need to be voted upon. I would like to keep the Senatorial positions out of this thread so we can focus on the sponsorship, please.

strong-arm · Post by **strong-arm** » 03 October 08 1:48 pm

Lucy wrote:8. I think it would be better to have a sponsor for GCA and a well-funded website ready to deal with a sudden influx, then to try and cope with the influx that could come from a magazine article or TV segment.

As much as I like the fringe element, I think this is a very good point and should not be overlooked. Every now and then there is an article in a low circulation magazine or newspaper. It's only a matter of time before someone plasters the website somewhere very public, either TV or a newspaper.

Planning for this by using the sponsorship to prepare is not a bad idea.

However I must confess, i'm still on the "I want to keep it a secret" side of the fence

KevL · Post by **KevL** » 03 October 08 1:52 pm

I think Lucy has summed it up well.

Having given the subject some further thought since my first post, and having read all the posts I have come to two conclusions.

1. A sponsorship deal with a get out clause after say 1 year can do little damage and potentially provide better services. Simply advertising something doesn't necessarily bring masses of converts. It's GCA that will be sponsored, not geocaching. Lets test the water.

2. There needs to be a formalized National body.

Kev

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 October 08 1:56 pm

totalube wrote:I agree with PBL, that a few more people need to know the particulars. I would also volunteer to help out, even if it means signing a confidentiality agreement (signed a few already ).

Before we go into this we really need to think about incorporation, otherwise it will just be a few volunteers that make the decisions for the group. I know that we are meant to keep the subject of incorporation/association out of this thread, but without establishing that first, we may be taking a risk going down the path of sponsorship. Also I think if GCA were incorporated, we would be much more appealing to other potential sponsors. As it is I can see why businesses would not want to deal with GCA in it's current form.

Refer to my post to PBL about Senators. Go for it. Get a temporary senate going for this topic by all means.

At the moment the premise of the site is free and open and it belongs to the community. For a few years now we have been looking at the Senate, but no-one does anything. There have been great suggestions, but no-one did anything. At the moment, the developers do what they feel is good and fun, but no-one gets to approve it. There are lots of people who say they will do things, but when push comes to shove, virtually no-one does. We can't get a Senate because the community can't be motivated to get one together, then certain members of the community make decisions on behalf of the website. It's not ideal, but if we didn't, nothing would happen.

So get together with PBL, create a thread, call for nominations, discuss the roles and responsibilities, discuss whether only those who hide and find caches on GCA can be a part, discuss whether only donors care enough to make a commitment, make it so. As part of the community y'all can start it off.

gmj3191 · Post by **gmj3191** » 03 October 08 8:27 pm

There is a lot more involved with this than just the sponsorship decision.
If it becomes necessary to become incorporated as an association, then that brings with it a tremendous overhead of formality, office bearers, meetings, minutes, financial records, membership requirements, operating rules, annual fees, annual reports, and POLITICS.

It will change the face of GCA forever.

pjamesk · Post by **pjamesk** » 03 October 08 8:41 pm

caughtatwork wrote:So get together with PBL, create a thread, call for nominations, discuss the roles and responsibilities, discuss whether only those who hide and find caches on GCA can be a part, discuss whether only donors care enough to make a commitment, make it so. As part of the community y'all can start it off.

<p>this has now started http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... 564#118564

SG-3 · Post by **SG-3** » 03 October 08 8:53 pm

OK, I've hesitated making any comment, as I'm not a member of the Senate, but if this "cacher-still-in-diapers-noobie"'s opinion is worth anything, here it is:
Wot Snuva and Lucy said, but with lots more comma's... definitely more comma's.

And while keeping simple (I am simple) and maybe simplistic; surely those who have invested most in GCA (namely:"the development team") would not EVEN concider this avenue, if they thought it would be detrimental to all their hard work? Yes, the relief of a possible loss of funding-frustration (frustration they don't need) may be a bit of a distraction, but ultimately I reccon their heads are screwed on straight (as much as a cacher's head CAN be!), and won't let that cloud their judgement.

Or am I being too simplistic, and reading c@w, et al, all wrong?

As it seems my Junior-Cacher status excludes me from Temporary Senate membership, I voice my feelings here.
Coming from a glass-is-half-empty/we'll-all-be-ru'ned/it-will-never-work/kinda-guy, what I just wrote scares me!

Ooooooooh!

Boagsratz · Post by **Boagsratz** » 03 October 08 10:00 pm

As we see it,. the big question is; are you up for the commercialisation of caching? Regardless of the corporate entity involved?

totalube · Post by **totalube** » 03 October 08 10:13 pm

I am still thinking about this and it may be an extremely positive move by GCA, but I still need more information to make a decision.

There is one concern that regardless of whether I get to know these details or not, that I was hoping could be answered.

If we go into the sponsorship deal, I am assuming that we will be getting professional legal advice to safeguard GCA in case the deal goes bad.

And I am not talking about caching becoming mainstream or changing the face of caching, but if any issues do arise about ownership, censorship, conflicts with the marketing firm/client etc that may happen.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 October 08 10:23 pm

Boagsratz wrote:As we see it,. the big question is; are you up for the commercialisation of caching? Regardless of the corporate entity involved?

Geocaching is already corporatised and commercialised. We are talking about the GCA website here, not geocaching in general. There is a link, obviously, but the commercialisation has already taken place, albeit in the US so far, not in Australia.