[Global_chapter_committee] [Global_conference_committee] Providing incentives for chapters to promote OWASP conferences AND membership

Mark Bristow mark.bristow at owasp.org
Mon Mar 14 14:51:04 EDT 2011


Matt,

This was actually brought up in the recent discussion regarding local
chapter splits.  While I'm all for your suggested method, I believe that
there was a logistical concern around doing this (at least in CVENT, may be
OBE at this point) and that providing the split to the true home chapter was
problematic.  The way that the accounting has been done is that the 60/40
split goes to the current conferences bottom line (and ultimately to the
Host chapter due to the split).

I've looped in Kate, as she can speak to RegOnline's ability to do it the
way you describe below as, at least IMO, it would be preferred.

Also, regarding "forced" membership by bundling membership in a discounted
ticket price.  We actually talked to a number of folks on this one and found
out it can be seriously problematic for people NOT paying for their own
ticket (vast majority of attendees).  Apparently, getting a conference
ticket approved for reimbursement is easy, but if it comes with a personal
membership attached it gets very complicated for some people (esp .gov
folks).  This is why it's still optional to join as a member when buying a
ticket, even tho it appears on the surface to be silly not to do so (in
theory, we should NEVER sell a non member ticket, yet these make up the bulk
of conference sales time and time again).

-Mark

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Matt Tesauro <matt.tesauro at owasp.org>wrote:

> Since OWASP makes a large percentage of our funds from our AppSec
> conferences, I'd like for OWASP put incentives in place for our chapters to
> assist in promoting our conferences.
>
> e.g. If the Boston chapter knew that it could get a cut from every
> attendee that went to AppSec US and ticked the box that said attend the
> Boston chapter meetings, they are much more likely to mention and talk about
> the benefits of AppSec US.  Same for the Belgium chapter and AppSec EU.
>
> However, if we expect to have chapter leaders help out with promoting OWASP
> conferences, we should show them some renumeration.
>
> Look at the "New York" model:  The conference costs X and it discounts X by
> $50 USD for OWASP members PLUS all non-members get a membership as part of
> the registration fees. [1]
>
> Under this model, why should the membership split NOT go to the local
> chapter of the attendee?  Yes, the chapter close to the conference will
> likely have many members in attendance but they will also be called on to
> help support the conference.  So shouldn't the chapter get that 60/40 split
> of the $50 membership?  Plus, any chapter which convinces their attendees
> that the conference is worth attending should also get the 60/40 split.
>
> I doubt we're talking about tons of money from the 60/40 split of $50 USD
> (not enough to make or break a conference anyway) and looking at this with
> my high-level board hat, I'd rather positively reward chapters that help
> sell our conferences then have that money in the OWASP general fund (if such
> a thing exists).  As I see it, everyone wins:
>
>    - The conference wins by expanding their marketing reach to all the
>    local chapter meeting attendees more consistently
>    - The membership wins
>       - Existing members save $50 USD and feel like their members gets
>       them something more then warm fuzzies
>       - Non-members are made members and some % of those will re-up when
>       it time to renew
>    - Local chapters get some funds in their accounts based on letting
>    their attendees know about OWASP conferences
>    - OWASP Foundation wins since the pool of people we reach grows.
>
> If this really works, we'll have the wonderful problem that we have so many
> members that nearly all conference registrations are discounted $50 USD.
>
> I'm looking for problems with this idea.  I don't really see any and would
> love to have this as an optional model for any OWASP conference.  I suspect
> our new RegOnline system can handle this so why not make it available?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> [1] I call it the New York model only because the first time I heard this
> employed was at the AppSec US in NYC in 2008.
>
> --
> -- Matt Tesauro
> OWASP Board Member
> OWASP WTE Project Lead
> http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Live_CD_Project
> http://AppSecLive.org - Community and Download site
>
> _______________________________________________
> Global_conference_committee mailing list
> Global_conference_committee at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/global_conference_committee
>
>


-- 
Mark Bristow
(703) 596-5175
mark.bristow at owasp.org

OWASP Global Conferences Committee Chair - http://is.gd/5MTvF
OWASP DC Chapter Co-Chair - http://is.gd/5MTwu
AppSec DC Organizer - https://www.appsecdc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_chapter_committee/attachments/20110314/9a619a1f/attachment.html 


More information about the Global_chapter_committee mailing list