Should Sponsors ask to be recognized?

[Collmandoman]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Sponsors can't be recognized if you don't know who they are. It is also the right of someone giving you money to ask to be noticed. It is good for their business. What is good for them helps bring in more money which is good for you as you will continue to get the same or more donations. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Not all sponsors want to be noticed and that is OK too.

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

" You can say.. "well this is just how the world works".. but I disagree.. this is what we've come to expect - We've come to notice a world that is Non-Gp.. and this is Deam Kamens dream to fix it. I think he would very much like for us not to parade around the sponsors names... but rather just thank them.. because we will as a community understand that their monetary sacrifices furthered FIRSTs' ideas. SO instead of having to display their names everywhere.. we thank them when we notice the appropriate times because we are actually gracious."

I do agree with the first part.. because how can you know somebody's name if you've never met them.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Like it or not, that's the way it is."

People seem to not only accept what you've said.. but like it. And that nearly makes my head explode.
This is one way you can look at it.. what if there is a sponsor that cares nothing about FIRST.. but sees.. well I can donate 5k a year and get my name on a wall.. which improve my revenues by about 12k yearly. Is this ok? Personally I feel it isn't, because they aren't doing it for the reason we are applauding them. Which I think you would all agree with me is non-GP.

Another way, what if it is mixed. (Meaning they like the ideas of FIRST and like making money) This is not a win-win situation in my mind, because they are profitting off their own involvement in a organization aimed at in some way making the world better and they would likely not be involved if they were not gaining profit in some way. I don't know how else to say this... but in every way it seems wrong. The money is great, and helps FIRST stay alive.. but I personally would not accept it if I were told.. you only get the money if you display our names this many times or do this other thing so many times. It should then become a matter of choice.. and with us all being gracious professionals I think we'd thank them out of our own intrests instead of basically having to.
Don't tak the things I've said in here too far.. it's all meant in a very nice way. =)

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

All I'm basically saying is .. it is not professional to ask for something in return for doing a good deed. Personal satisfaction should be enough.. and if it is a truly good thing you are doing.. people will note that and thank you.

I think you are missing the intention of this thread. What Steve is asking is if people would be willing to volunteer some extra cash to help ChiefDelphi.com continue/improve the outstanding service it's providing to the FIRST community. It's not a question of asking for something in return- it would be asking for contributions to offset the real-world cost involved of hosting such a valuable site. As the site increases in popularity and use, it will require more computing resources to handle to load, and so more funding. Would I donate to the cause? Absolutely. Would I need anything in return? No, but it never hurts to say thank you in some way.

If your comments were related to donations in general, I do have to disagree. My team is funded entirely by donations from local companies. It's great when people just handed us the cash with a big smile, but I do feel obligated to provide something in return as a token of good will, or simply as a thank you. That's why we offer space on the back of our team t-shirts for recognition of sponsors. It's not a question of professionalism, it's incentive. Some companies have no problem writing a check to support the future of science and engineering. Other companies need something to show for it, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Think of it this way- We, like many teams, hold pancake breakfasts as fundraisers. People pay (donate) money to the team, and get pancakes in return. Is it not professional for people to show up to a fundraiser like this and expect to eat pancakes in return for a donation? Some people come because they support our team, while others come because they want a quality Sunday breakfast out of the house. For the latter, does it matter they gave us money with the expectation of getting food? The team still gets the donation, the customer gets a quality breakfast. Isn't it the same for companies giving money with the expectation of some sort of advertising? The team gets the donation, while the company gets the recognition necessary to continue providing funding. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Collmandoman]

I was side tracked by Joe Johnsons comments on being rewarded for donating. It made me think...

Originally Posted by MARC P

If your comments were related to donations in general, I do have to disagree. My team is funded entirely by donations from local companies. It's great when people just handed us the cash with a big smile, but I do feel obligated to provide something in return as a token of good will, or simply as a thank you.

Please READ what I wrote.. and you will notice that I agree with you entirely... not disagree --

Think of it this way- We, like many teams, hold pancake breakfasts as fundraisers. People pay (donate) money to the team, and get pancakes in return. Is it not professional for people to show up to a fundraiser like this and expect to eat pancakes in return for a donation? Some people come because they support our team, while others come because they want a quality Sunday breakfast out of the house. For the latter, does it matter they gave us money with the expectation of getting food? The team still gets the donation, the customer gets a quality breakfast. Isn't it the same for companies giving money with the expectation of some sort of advertising? The team gets the donation, while the company gets the recognition necessary to continue providing funding. I see nothing wrong with that.

This isn't anything like I just mentioned.. These people aren't asking to be reimbursed at the contest.. you are doing service to them.. they should pay you.. or you can take them to jail. The 2 situations aren't anything alike

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I was side tracked by Joe Johnsons comments on being rewarded for donating. It made me think...

I agree and I apologize for an accidental hijacking. I did not mean to, but my free association has taken this thread in places I am sure that it was not intended.

The take away message for me is that it is nice to know that a lot of folks are willing to kick in if the Team Chief Delphi ever passes the hat to help defray the costs associated with the ChiefDelphi.com website.

Joe J.

[Collmandoman]

no it's a good thing I think atleast-- better than hearing 100 ppl just say "yeah I'm down" ~ It seems to be an issue ppl are split on.. and there are good points being made. You accidently made it more interesting =)

[Steve W]

I have started this thread in response to the following post from another thread.

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I do agree with the first part.. because how can you know somebody's name if you've never met them.


People seem to not only accept what you've said.. but like it. And that nearly makes my head explode.
This is one way you can look at it.. what if there is a sponsor that cares nothing about FIRST.. but sees.. well I can donate 5k a year and get my name on a wall.. which improve my revenues by about 12k yearly. Is this ok? Personally I feel it isn't, because they aren't doing it for the reason we are applauding them. Which I think you would all agree with me is non-GP.

Another way, what if it is mixed. (Meaning they like the ideas of FIRST and like making money) This is not a win-win situation in my mind, because they are profitting off their own involvement in a organization aimed at in some way making the world better and they would likely not be involved if they were not gaining profit in some way. I don't know how else to say this... but in every way it seems wrong. The money is great, and helps FIRST stay alive.. but I personally would not accept it if I were told.. you only get the money if you display our names this many times or do this other thing so many times. It should then become a matter of choice.. and with us all being gracious professionals I think we'd thank them out of our own intrests instead of basically having to.
Don't tak the things I've said in here too far.. it's all meant in a very nice way. =)

I may be wrong here but I really don't care why businesses give. The final result is that there are students being inspired. Anyone who is willing to give me legal money to support our team is welcome as long as what the business stands for is not in conflict with FIRST and it's principles. There are many reasons for giving. If someone is able to make money from a sponsorship that is OK with me. If they are able to recruit employees from FIRST teams that's great too. As I see it if the team benefits and the sponsor benefits it is a WIN/WIN situation.

[Allison K]

If there are benefits to both sides of course it's a win-win situation. Also, I'm not absolutely positive, but I don't think most sponsors require teams to post their names and logos on the robot, banners, shirts, etc. I think it's usually something that the team offers as a thank you to companies who donate. Right?

Even if public recognition is required by the sponsors, I still don't see the problem. The benefits that come from donations are enormous, and if the companies from benefit from sponsoring us as well why is that a bad thing? I would almost hope that the companies could get something in return, other than a little logo on a shirt, which seems somewhat insignificant when compared with what the team gets from the sponsor.

~Allison

[Katie Reynolds]

Just FYI ...

The last 7 or so (relevant) posts from the "Help Upgrade CD thread" have been moved to here.

Discuss away.

[Marc P.]

Great spin-off thread Steve! I guess the real question here is within the bounds of Gracious Professionalism, what are teams willing to do for a donation or funding, and if I understand Collmandoman's posts, whether it's right for a business to ask for something in return for a donation.

It's a widely known and accepted fact that money is a requirement to operate a FIRST team. There's the $6,000 registration fee, $4,000 for additional regionals, and $5,000 for registration in Atlanta. Add in the cost of materials for the robot, any costs for facilities, and any money spent on team travel, and we're talking about a rather substantial amount of money to be raised. FIRST is an incredible program. I don't think I'm to far out on a limb when I say I'd be willing to do virtually anything to see this program continue inspiring people about the wonders and potentials of science and technology. Since money is the main ingredient to getting a team registered, I'd say within the bounds of law, any method of obtaining money is worthwhile to help FIRST continue to grow. If that means printing out a company logo to stick on a robot, or adding the name to a team's banner to be hung up at regionals, does it really make a difference with regard to how much the team members learn and grow? If the company nets an extra $12k a year because of all the exposure at regionals, it would only make good business sense to continue donating money to the team, because they make a return on investment. The company benefits, therefore increasing the chances of continued or expanded funding. The team benefits, because without money they wouldn't exist. The students and mentors benefit, because they can work on building relationships and robots while become inspired by attending competitions. Ultimately, everyone wins, so I really don't see how it's unprofessional to ask for something reasonable in return when making a donation.

[MikeDubreuil]

I agree that it would be unprofessional to ask for recognition if you donated money. However, it creates an even weirder situation if the sponsor is not recognized because there is an assumption that some advertisement will come from the donation.

When I was younger I played town league hockey. My team was called Pumpernickel Pub. A local bar sponsored us. Their sponsorship bought us ice time, some equipment and team jerseys. The team jerseys were green and did say Pumpernickel Pub on them. We were known as “Pumpernickel Pub” and we would have thought it absurd to not have it any other way.

From as long as I can remember if I was involved in a group or club that was not for profit we would acknowledge those who donated generously. FIRST is no different.

The FIRST robotics competition has sponsors too. In fact we see their advertisement every time we go to a competition on the black wall next to the video screen. Why doesn’t Woodie Flowers the man who pioneered gracious professionalism, not allow sponsor banners? It’s simple, he knows those sponsors expect some form of advertisement or come next year their pockets could become shallower.

The donations Chief Delphi could receive will significantly reduce the cost to the team. This is important because CD.com has become a tool to every FIRST team, not just a Chief Delphi forum. In acknowledging it’s sponsors, ChiefDelphi.com can very easily recognize their donators with a special button or donations points with virtually zero cost.

The question boils down to, should CD.com recognize donators. Woodie has shown us that it is not ungracious to recognize sponsors. I say, if it doesn’t cost much and is fairly simple to implement, why not?

[Collmandoman]

I think as professionals ,sponsors should not ask to be recognized, and as we are professionals we will recognize them because we feel it's right, having never been asked to. I think that's the best way for it to happen

If the company nets an extra $12k a year because of all the exposure at regionals, it would only make good business sense to continue donating money to the team, because they make a return on investment. The company benefits, therefore increasing the chances of continued or expanded funding. The team benefits, because without money they wouldn't exist. The students and mentors benefit, because they can work on building relationships and robots while become inspired by attending competitions. Ultimately, everyone wins, so I really don't see how it's unprofessional to ask for something reasonable in return when making a donation.

I'm talking about the situations.. where they don't care about the team.. but only personal profit. Is that right? Any sponsor like this.. is also one that will only sponsor if you if you give them recognition. So.. I guess another question is emerging.. Do you want a sponsor that cares about the team.. or themselves? Should sponsors only get involved if they undersrand what FIRST is about?

[Joe Johnson]

they would likely not be involved if they were not gaining profit in some way. I don't know how else to say this... but in every way it seems wrong.

Example #1:
I am sure that Radio Shack is of 2 minds. I think that they probably support the general idea of folks in their main market getting inspired to go into science and technology careers. BUT... ... I am also confident that they think that selling VEX stuff is likely to make them more money in the long run.

Example #2:
Bob and Tony from IFI are great guys. They put in tons of work for Team 148 before deciding to try to make the Victor 883. Making the Victor 883 was good for FIRST, but the profits they made from FIRST teams essentially jump started their company. A company that I suppose has well over 10 million dollars (US) in annual sales (much of it outside of FIRST to be sure).

Example #3:
Andy Baker and Mark Coors are awesome individuals. AndyMark provides great stuff to FIRST teams as a supplier to the kit and as a maker of COTS parts for FIRST robots. Here is a secret. AndyMark is not a charitable institution. They make money from FIRST teams (Zounds!)

Future Example #(N+1):
Robotic Amusements, Inc. will make products that (I hope) FIRST participants will love to use. While they are not target customers, the demographics of FIRST participants is almost a perfect image of our target end users. If we are successful, sponsoring FIRST teams, regionals, and championships Robotic Amusements, Inc. will not be charity but just plain good marketing.

they would likely not be involved if they were not gaining profit in some way. I don't know how else to say this... but in every way it seems wrong.

Is it your position that FIRST should turn away support from these folks because the money is somehow tainted?

From my point of view, these examples are examples to try to duplicate not denegrate.

Think about it, I have never heard a single NCAA basketball team complain that they qualified for the NCAA tourney but could not go because hotels, travel, etc. were going to cost too much. Know why? Because Corp. America has found it in their interest to pay the travel bills for the teams (and then some).

they would likely not be involved if they were not gaining profit in some way. I don't know how else to say this... but in every way it seems wrong.

I look forward to the day when Nike, McDonalds and Coke are paying big bucks to have their logo on every T-shirt at the Championships because it probably means that they are paying the bills for us to inspire kids.

Joe J.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Putting logos on robots just makes good sense. To be frank, anyone donating to or sponsoring a team is expecting something. At the very least, they're expecting you to use the money for its stated purpose. Quite probably they're expecting their logo or name to show up somewhere and will make this fact known in some fashion.

If you take their money and don't use it for what you said you would, and they find out, you won't be getting any money from them or their friends anymore. If they're expecting you to put a logo on the robot and you don't, they're quite likely to find out and will approach you about it. Quite probably they won't sponsor you if you refuse to recognize them in some fashion. Yes, it's quite cynical, but this is how things work. As stated above, if the outcome is another FIRST team and more inspired kids, then as long as the money comes from legal means it's okay by me if they want me to do some small things to recognize them. If they want you to totally reorganize and rename your team, etc, then you need to weigh the costs and benefits. Yes, for those philosophy students out there (I know there's a few) this is a classical Utilitarian approach to the problem.

[Collmandoman]

I dunno.. gah I guess I'm just frustrated at macroeconomics...

Example #3:
Andy Baker and Mark Coors are awesome individuals. AndyMark provides great stuff to FIRST teams as a supplier to the kit and as a maker of COTS parts for FIRST robots. Here is a secret. AndyMark is not a charitable institution. They make money from FIRST teams (Zounds!)

I don't mean this rude... If I were in a large company and I saw FIRST.. I would give everything free.. or if I was in a small one-- everything would be at cost . If everyone did this.. the kit would be less.. and thus every year you wouldn't pay 6k.. which would enable more students to be inspired(because more team would be able to go). I know this is hard for small companies, and I understand why they have to do this. I think FIRST should target only the very large companies that understand the ideas of FIRST and give everything at cost, or donate(I know several already do). A free kit would be nice.. and maybe it's on the FIRST horizon. Or maybe I'm a fool

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I think as professionals ,sponsors should not ask to be recognized, and as we are professionals we will recognize them because we feel it's right, having never been asked to. I think that's the best way for it to happen.
...
Do you want a sponsor that cares about the team.. or themselves? Should sponsors only get involved if they undersrand what FIRST is about?

And I would have to respond that, as the largest sponsor of FIRST teams in the entire program, NASA massively disagrees with you. I reject the notion that asking for a team to acknowledge the sponsorship of an organization is equivalent to not understanding what FIRST is all about. When NASA sponsors a team, part of the deal is that NASA is recognized by the team as a sponsor, "NASA" is included somewhere in the team name, and the NASA logo appears somewhere on the robot. This is done for a number of reasons, including:

- it is appropriate and professional to recognize the contributions of all members of the team; when an organization sponsors the team, they tacitly become part of the team, they and the team are then associated with each other, and they should be recognized as such

- recognition of NASA sponsorship of the team acknowledges that NASA has used their resources to "support the cause" and further both the goals of FIRST and the agency. They can then show their sponsors (the U.S. Congress and the public) that they are properly utilizing the resources that they have been given. When they do so, then they are given additional resources in future years to continue the effort. If they don't, then about 200 teams will be without sponsorship next year.

- Oh yeah, and FIRST requires it.

So the bottom line is that NASA does, and will continue to, ask to be recognized as a sponsor when the agency supports a team. Because NASA is smart enough to understand that without the recognition of the sponsorship, the ability of the agency to continue to support the program will be questionable and the long term effects are much, much worse than any minor discomfort someone might feel about asking for a logo to be placed on a robot.

Does this mean that NASA is a bad sponsor, or the agency is involved for all the wrong reasons, or the agency doesn't understand what FIRST is all about. Well, NASA has been involved with FIRST for the past ten years. You have all had ample opportunity to observe the actions and behaviors of the agency and it's engineers, and judge if NASA is an appropriate sponsor or not. What do you think?

-dave