big sponsors hate good teams

[WynS]

I think that sponsors like "quality" teams and I agree that quality can be defined different ways. We try to inspire others as a team and make an impact on students lives. We also make a point of keeping our sponsors informed about how we are doing that. I really think they appreciate that - they also really like photos. As a result, we have some very loyal sponsors - monetary and otherwise. Some of our sponsors have approached us because I believe they see us as a quality team. We do have a few large sponsors but we also have many smaller sponsors. When people ask how we get sponsors, I tell them that we are always promoting FIRST and our team to try and recruit new sponsors. You never know where a sponsorship will come from. Some of our sponsors have come from casual conversations about robotics. We take nothing for granted because there is no guarantee that any of our sponsors will return for the next season.

When sending out sponsor updates, we try and emphasize how much our students are learning and doing because I think that is really what sponsors are interested in. We have not always been a winning team but we have always tried to be a quality team.

[MikeBrock]

This thread makes so much sense!!! Great work OP!

[Greg McKaskle]

Along with a few other engineers, I review FRC grant requests for NI funding. I also lead a team of engineers in doing the recruiting tasks at a major Texas university. The qualities that we value in FRC teams are amazingly similar to those we value in employees. This shouldn't be too surprising since we are essentially selecting a representative, one that you will make an investment in and hoping for some amount of accomplishment.

For an employee, no matter how good the grades or the list of accomplishments, they must be able to communicate and convince you that they can be a strong member of a team. This includes verbal, written, and body language and attitude. They don't have to be an actor or produce prose like Shakespeare, but negative impressions and miscommunication can be very costly in day-to-day operations. And of course the communication will largely be about technical topics -- descriptions of buggy mechanisms, observations that help to discover faults, descriptions of the plan that will make it is robust/fast/shiny. They also need to be able to describe the goals they initially set as well as their updates to those goals. You are looking at the whole package, and nobody is perfect, but your task as an interviewer/reviewer is to find ways to compare the expected contribution of each candidate and score or rank them.

For FRC teams, this hardly changes except that you aren't dealing with a specific individual, but an organization -- a team. The team's pit, signage, theme/message/attitude, the goals they set for themselves as an organization, and their accomplishments are all considered. Some of this comes from he written grant request, and some from previous encounters at events. Scoring lots of points or playing good D honestly isn't much of a factor for NI. Awards and positive impact on the students and community far outweigh a technically sophisticated robot or well-coached drivers.

It is also useful to think about a sponsorship request as a competition. Hundreds of teams are likely applying for the same thing as you, and you want your team merits to win your team the grant. This is similar to college applications and it happens within companies too -- for project funding, advancement, and winning contracts.

NI grants try to strike a balance between financial need, accomplishments, and locality. We do not want to see good teams fold. We want to see a good balance of mentor/student involvement. Local team sponsorship has the benefit of combining funds and direct engineer mentoring and it is highly visible and easier to measure results.

Finally, we have to weigh impact of the funds we give to a particular FRC team against the impact it would have on FLL or GirlStart, United Way or other charities. And at the end of the day, these funds could alternately be used to purchase faster computers, construct buildings, pay salaries of employees and interns; so we do have to justify how we are spending company money and why a particular FRC team's budget is more important than the other choices.

So, I'd encourage you to reconsider your initial conclusion. I suspect that this is based on a specific incident, and I doubt that the company motives are what you suggest. If your team was the one to lose funding and doesn't understand why, it is perfectly reasonable for the team to write a professional letter asking for more information, areas for improvement, etc. Be sure this is an official team letter and not a barrage of disorganized questions from different students or subteams. You may also consider sending a letter to companies who are still sponsoring, to tell them how your team did this season, how the money or time investment helped students and team, etc. Let them know how much this means to you and say thank you. This material helps a proponent of FIRST within the company to justify continuing and possibly enhancing the sponsorship.

Greg McKaskle

[Foster]

I always hate to be late to a thread but my grammar response and presentation of sponsors was covered by Libby. +1

I do want to comment on Greg's post. As a sponsor (STEMRobotics) I get a ton of requests each year. Like Greg/NI we try to spend the money where it will do the most good (AKA biggest bang for the buck). So we have a tendency to fund starter teams in areas that are under served by competition robotics.

[jman4747]

The most common thing I get from current and potential sponsors is "do you need help?" and "do you need/will you get good use out of it?". Proving that you need any given amount of money is harder for most smaller teams than parts, materials, and tools.

[waialua359]

What's not emphasized enough is what you do once you receive funding. That in itself requires a lot, especially if you plan on reapplying for the same sponsorship, generally speaking.

[Iaquinto.Joe]

Looking at OP's post history they're either a troll or a child. CD is too easy to get a ruse out of some times.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by Iaquinto.Joe

Looking at OP's post history they're either a troll or a child. CD is too easy to get a ruse out of some times.

I think so too but the replies can yield useful information. Just use the opportunity to have a meaningful discussion and spread some useful information. This thread has probably been more useful than the championship split ones.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by jman4747

I think so too but the replies can yield useful information. Just use the opportunity to have a meaningful discussion and spread some useful information. This thread has probably been more useful than the championship split ones.

I was thinking this exact same thing. The definition of success has been cast in a different light in this thread. One that can be seen very clearly and from different perspectives. Different viewpoints and perspectives can serve a great purpose; they can widen the scope.

This is a good discussion, especially for young teams who are learning the ropes.

Jane

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by Iaquinto.Joe

Looking at OP's post history they're either a troll or a child. CD is too easy to get a ruse out of some times.

May be so, but i am going to save this thread for later use, has some really good stuff for getting sponsorship's.