"Partner protection" @ '09 USPA Nationals

[nbblood 0]

Quote

Official sponsors receive exclusively and certain perks, placement etc that none official sponsor do not. No question in any event anywhere that this is standard practice. What is NOT standard practice in any major sponsored event is limiting what sponsored athletes do on there own time, in there own space.

Ok, fine. But USPA Nationals is NOT (at least in my frame of reference) a major sponsored event. It caters to a very small population with very small sponsorship opportunities. It is NOT comparable to "major" sponsored events.

We have been discussion the issue of not letting sponsor jumpers represent those companies who paid sponsorship dollar/ provided product to get teams to nationals.

When you pay a fee you receive the right to what ever the event may offer, be it placement in a bag, signage, mike time, sponsored parties, vendors booth and space etc etc. Those who do not pay this fee by chose but have sponsored teams are limited to the athlete area for there logos, giveaway. They are still paying and making the event happen but in a smaller financial way and thus get a smaller ROI.

Ok, fine. That may be standard at major sponsored events. I concede that you have more experience than I and can more reliably say what is the norm. Again, we're comparing apples and oranges. The conditions for this event are different with different opportunities. The rules are different. So what?

So in fact your statement and correlation to a major sporting stadium is wrong.

Oh, so PD can run over to Minute Maid Park and set up their tent on the concourse? You know that's not true. That's what I'm trying to convey.

And hey it's really cool you know what major sporting events I've sponsored, for what brands, and how many sponsors there are! I would love to know that trick as it would come in really handy at my contract negotiations.

Yeah, you're right. I made some assumptions when you say "major" sporting event. I don't have any clue. I don't care. What I do know is USPA Nationals is NOT a "major" sporting event to anybody but the very small skydiving community. Hence my conclusions.

Times have changed, the rules as of this moment at nationals are now out of line with ANY other major sponsored event... if you can find one that doesn't operate as outlined above i'll change my tune.

Again, it is NOT a "major" sponsored event. The event has established conditions to give itself an advantage in competing for $$. Figure out how to compete or miss out on the $$. One proven way to get the "establishment" to concede is to boycott the event. All in favor?

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quit telling businesses they can't run their business the way they see fit to give them an advantage.

Fine. And while we're at it, quit telling prospective customers they can't shop the way they see fit and not patronize businesses who seek to gain that advantage by fucking other people over.

[nbblood 0]

Quote

Quote

Quit telling businesses they can't run their business the way they see fit to give them an advantage.

Fine. And while we're at it, quit telling prospective customers they can't shop the way they see fit and not patronize businesses who seek to gain that advantage by fucking other people over.

When did I say that? As a matter of fact I proposed it in the very next post. By all means, if you don't like it, do something about it. That IS what I'm saying.

In this particular instance, perhaps you should consider how $$ were spent that benefitted ALL skydivers, not just "sponsored" ones and how many "sponsored" skydivers were affected with any significant impact on the other side. I'm just sayin'.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

When did I say that?

You didn't. That's my point: you're mischaracterizing other people's positions on the issue, and then using that as the "position" to argue against. Does little to advance the discussion.

[nbblood 0]

Quote

Quote

When did I say that?

You didn't. That's my point: you're mischaracterizing other people's positions on the issue, and then using that as the "position" to argue against. Does little to advance the discussion.

Ok, fair enough, my interpretation of what the complaints are. This really is getting pretty senseless. The end result is the sky is not falling. Individuals, teams, businesses and events will adapt to changing conditions. That is all.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[PhreeZone 14]

Actually here is the thing about the UPSA Nationals... the rules can and usually do change year to year as each host DZ wants the rules for their event. Perris, Eloy, Spaceland, Chicago... they can change the rules from year to year so athletes better start asking questions now if they don't want to run into surprises at Chicago next year.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[LloydDobbler 2]

Earlier, you said (emphasis added):

Quote

I guess he could have taken the tent and his advertising to a major sports stadium and met his sponsorship agreement there......oh, wait......no he couldn't, because they have partner protection too!!! This is NOT unprecedented.

Now, you say:

Quote

Ok, fine. But USPA Nationals is NOT (at least in my frame of reference) a major sponsored event. It caters to a very small population with very small sponsorship opportunities. It is NOT comparable to "major" sponsored events.

Quote

Ok, fine. That may be standard at major sponsored events. I concede that you have more experience than I and can more reliably say what is the norm. Again, we're comparing apples and oranges. The conditions for this event are different with different opportunities. The rules are different. So what?

Quote

Yeah, you're right. I made some assumptions when you say "major" sporting event. I don't have any clue. I don't care. What I do know is USPA Nationals is NOT a "major" sporting event to anybody but the very small skydiving community. Hence my conclusions.

Quote

Again, it is NOT a "major" sponsored event. The event has established conditions to give itself an advantage in competing for $$. Figure out how to compete or miss out on the $$. One proven way to get the "establishment" to concede is to boycott the event. All in favor?

...so wait a second. Earlier you compared USPA Nationals to other major sporting events/venues which you say have similar agreements in place. "This is NOT unprecedented."

But then Nomad calls you out on the fact that major sporting events do things differently. So you spend a long message insisting that USPA Nationals are completely different from major sporting events.

...I must be missing something.

Signatures are the new black.

[billvon 2,379]

> The end result is the sky is not falling.

Of course not. And the sky doesn't fall when Skyride takes over most student skydiving in an area. Doesn't mean we have to (or should) live with it.

[topdocker 0]

The sky didn't fall, but was there a benefit to all this? How did this benefit the skydiver, the membership, the association, and the dz?

I can answer the first three pretty well for me after ten days here, but not the last one. Those are the questions that need answers for there to be an honest evaluation of the situation.

top

Jump more, post less!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

In this particular instance, perhaps you should consider how $$ were spent that benefitted ALL skydivers

I would like to consider this, but so far I have not heard what sort of new and unique amenities or services the competitors recieved this year over previous years.

You see, hosting the same competition as last year would have been acceptable. If all other things were equal, nobody could reasonably expect any sort of new or unique amenities or services as compared to previous years.

However, in this case all things did not remain equal. The DZ did step in and use it's 'home field advantage' to place limitations on the competitors sponsorships in order to increase the value of sponsorship the DZ was offering. So now that the DZ clearly has an advantage over past years host DZs, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that they would be providing new and unique amenities and services. As I mentioned earlier, I still have not heard what these new features were.

I understand your point about business and competition in the market place, and all that jazz, but you're missing a key point. Sapceland, in this instance is not operating in the free market. They are hosting an event for an outside entity, in this case the USPA. The USPA holds this meet for the purpose of giving it's dues paying memebers a forum in which to gather and display their skills. For the host DZ to do anything to limit the participation or enjoyment of those members represents a deriliction of duty.

If you're going to bid to host the Nationals, you have to understand that for that week it's not your sandbox anymore. You're sharing the sandbox, and you have to consider everyone on the playground when making decisions.

After Nationals, have it and fuck over anyone you want.

Just for the record, I've been to Spaceland and I think it's a great DZ (this was years ago, and I hear it's even better now) and everyone there from the jumpers to the staff and management were as nice as can be. I don't agree with the call they made in this case, but they are nice folks.

[BikerBabe 0]

Spent a few days there (had to show up and win a gold, heh). Cobra Kai!

Have to agree about the "deadness", especially on weather holds.

Didn't hear much from the Perris crowd about this overtly, though there were definitely some sarcastic jokes and jabs going around. For example, someone had an extra PD bottle opener, and people joked that they weren't allowed to give that to a teammate here, that sort of thing.

I did see a huge pile of PD pullup cords left on the floor of the AC packing area. The person who placed them there said something to effect of he just happened to have these laying around....

I also saw Kelly F wandering around with an absolutely gorgeous Infinity on his back...but nothing beyond that. Hope he didn't get in trouble.

As for "extra" stuff, i guess Camscore was new, but it replaced a perfectly functional scoring system, so not sure if that counts.

I think Nomad (who apparently works in marketing/PR...) gave a perfect example of how this affected someone THIS YEAR, right now. why can't folks accept that? Now we just need to discuss how to deal with it, i guess.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[nbblood 0]

Quote

Quote

In this particular instance, perhaps you should consider how $$ were spent that benefitted ALL skydivers

I would like to consider this, but so far I have not heard what sort of new and unique amenities or services the competitors recieved this year over previous years.

You see, hosting the same competition as last year would have been acceptable. If all other things were equal, nobody could reasonably expect any sort of new or unique amenities or services as compared to previous years.

However, in this case all things did not remain equal. The DZ did step in and use it's 'home field advantage' to place limitations on the competitors sponsorships in order to increase the value of sponsorship the DZ was offering. So now that the DZ clearly has an advantage over past years host DZs, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that they would be providing new and unique amenities and services. As I mentioned earlier, I still have not heard what these new features were.

I understand your point about business and competition in the market place, and all that jazz, but you're missing a key point. Sapceland, in this instance is not operating in the free market. They are hosting an event for an outside entity, in this case the USPA. The USPA holds this meet for the purpose of giving it's dues paying memebers a forum in which to gather and display their skills. For the host DZ to do anything to limit the participation or enjoyment of those members represents a deriliction of duty.

If you're going to bid to host the Nationals, you have to understand that for that week it's not your sandbox anymore. You're sharing the sandbox, and you have to consider everyone on the playground when making decisions.

After Nationals, have it and fuck over anyone you want.

Just for the record, I've been to Spaceland and I think it's a great DZ (this was years ago, and I hear it's even better now) and everyone there from the jumpers to the staff and management were as nice as can be. I don't agree with the call they made in this case, but they are nice folks.

Well, I suppose you haven't seen or noticed the new packing area, the new hangar, the new shower and laundry facilities, the team rooms, a state of the art swoop pond and facilities, new camping facilities and a myriad of other things. Your stance is just like everybody else. If they don't get somebody personally putting goodies or money in their hand, they fail to see what is provided. Typical attitude these days.

My point is missed here. It's easy to tear apart an argument when you try several ways to make a point. I'm not defending the fact that Spaceland made these restrictions.

I AM saying, they did nothing wrong, immoral, illegal. They made a business decision which they have every right to do. Yes, it is a USPA event. That USPA event just happened to be at Spaceland. If USPA had issue with it, they could have easily intervened. They didn't.

Soooo.....and this is really my point that is missed amongst all the other jibberish (mine included).......If you don't like it, don't sit and say, "Bad DZ," "Bad USPA" "Don't you dare try to make business deals that prevent me from getting free stuff (cause that's what the issue is really, people aren't getting their free stuff)"

Instead, figure a course of action that makes you competitive for the sponsorship $$. OR......put enough pressure on the event, through consumer action, that they change their policies.

People spend too much time saying "Poor me" and not near enough time doing anything about it. THAT is my point.

Yes, this did affect somebody this year. It also benefitted a ton of people with new facilities, planes, etc, used during nationals and that will be enduring. The sponsorship $$ aren't going to come anywhere close to recovering those costs. If you don't recognize how the $$ spent benefitted everybody at nationals and anybody that goes to Spaceland after now, well then open your eyes.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[nbblood 0]

Quote

> The end result is the sky is not falling.

Of course not. And the sky doesn't fall when Skyride takes over most student skydiving in an area. Doesn't mean we have to (or should) live with it.

Bill, I can't even believe you've tried, twice now, to compare this to Skyride. Whatever. What has Skyride provided back to the community and what has Spaceland. That's as far as you need to go with that argument.

But your point about not having to live with it is true enough. We don't......if there's enough support to do something about it. That is my point and I think yours too.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Well, I suppose you haven't seen or noticed the new packing area, the new hangar, the new shower and laundry facilities, the team rooms, a state of the art swoop pond and facilities, new camping facilities and a myriad of other things.

First off, none of those things are 'new' to Nationals. Every previous host offered all of those things as part of their hosting the event.

The DZ I jump at has two bathrooms, two showers, and not the greatest bunkhouse that sleeps 6. As such, we did not bid for Nationals because we don't have the facilities to house the event. If you are going to place a bid, that's an indication that you will be ready and able to provide the facilities needed to run the meet when the time comes.

The real problem with your list is that all of those things are capital improvements to the DZ, and will remain in place and benefiting the DZ for years to come. Spaceland's ability to host future meets, boggies, and big-way events has increased significantly. They already had the lift capacity to host those events, and now the facilities match.

Remind me again how this represents new and unique amenities or services that benefitted the competitors? I'm still interested in what the trade-off was for giving up the right to bring personal sponsorship to the meet. What was the upside of that deal for the competitors?

[nbblood 0]

Ok, I give up. It was the most devestating thing ever done to our sport. It prevented people from getting their free stuff. We should all grab our torches, tar and feathers, take our vigilante group to the DZ, tar and feather them, and do everything we can to discourage DZs from promoting their business at our expense, because after all, they are only there for us to benefit from. Anything they do for themselves should be terms for dismemberment.

Rock on. Get all the people that give a crap enough together and make it happen. Or just badmouth them on the internet and drown yourself in self pity.....I don't care, either way.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[billvon 2,379]

> What has Skyride provided back to the community and what has
>Spaceland.

Both are businesses. I am sure the Skyride folks would tell you that they are helping keep drop zones open and tandem masters in business by steering students their way, and that they deserve to make a profit. And they may even have a point.

However, that doesn't mean that everything they do is good.

Spaceland is a great DZ. I've been there twice so far and made some good friends there. Both times they've bent over backwards to help out jumpers. That doesn't make it OK to hurt sponsored competitors to make some extra money (or in their case, lose less money.)

IMO of course.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

And yet no one has yet to step up and claim to be harmed. Hmmmmm.

[Nomad 0]

Quote

And yet no one has yet to step up and claim to be harmed. Hmmmmm.

OHH OHHH Pick me!!! I did.

All that is gold does not glitter, Not all who wander are lost.

[Nomad 0]

Quote

Ok, I give up. It was the most devestating thing ever done to our sport. It prevented people from getting their free stuff. We should all grab our torches, tar and feathers, take our vigilante group to the DZ, tar and feather them, and do everything we can to discourage DZs from promoting their business at our expense, because after all, they are only there for us to benefit from. Anything they do for themselves should be terms for dismemberment.

Rock on. Get all the people that give a crap enough together and make it happen. Or just badmouth them on the internet and drown yourself in self pity.....I don't care, either way.

Quote

Oh, so PD can run over to Minute Maid Park and set up their tent on the concourse? You know that's not true. That's what I'm trying to convey.***

I can't speak for others, but my issue has never been about them charging a sponsorship fee, that is standard, acceptable practice for events from local fairs to the Superbowl. My problem is that Spaceland enacting rules that restricted what sponsor skydivers are allowed to do in their own, PAID FOR(i.e. entry fees, if PD paid them or your team, or the individual paid them they still paid) space and on their own time.

So while I don't know what Minute Maid park is or what is hosted there... No, I would not expect a skydiver to be able to go over and set up shop and receive signage placement for free. But if he/she was sponsored by Sunny D and involved in an event at Minute Maid park I would expect them to be allowed there Sunny D set up to follow them inside.

Businesses need to make money to survive, we aren't a bunch of commune hippies trading love and flowers for free skydiving and brownies. My issue is not with Spaceland charging a sponsorship fee. If they feel *$,000k is a fair amount and the Official sponsors felt they received a good ROI, then rock on Spaceland. But they should not be shutting off the unofficial sponsors, via entry fees/other dz revenue, by restricting athletes in an unprecedented and equitable way. Nationals would not happen and/or we would not have the skill level we do in this country if every skydiver paid out of pocket for training and competition. These restrictions are unreasonable, will discourage sponsorsm and will hurt all competition in the end.

I also agree that this is the USPA nationals and while Spaceland was in the wrong for these rules, they were simply a host and USPA should have ruled against this policy the moment it was presented.

All that is gold does not glitter, Not all who wander are lost.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

And yet no one has yet to step up and claim to be harmed. Hmmmmm.

OHH OHHH Pick me!!! I did.

What ever she said. I would never argue with a lady that has a outstanding avatar like yours.

Looking forward

Maybe with the info you've supplied (among others) USPA will close some loop holes in their contracts for hosting the future nationals. Time will tell
Anyone know if the the hosts for the 2010 and 2011 national been selected yet and the contracts signed?

One Jump Wonder

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

What has Skyride provided back to the community and what has Spaceland.

Are you kidding? Read posts by ASC jumpers... skyride has provided that DZ with wonderful facilities! That's a major excuse locals have made for skyride's practices. The jumpers at that one DZ, home of the eastern skydiving championships (or whatever their website used to say), benefit from skyride with a nice dropzone. Sound familiar??

But I think it's ridiculous to say that "partner protection" is what gave spaceland the resources to improve their facilities. That's your argument, not mine. Spaceland landed 4 partners. How many sponsors did Eloy have last year? Eloy managed to run nationals (many times) without these unnecessary rules.

I'm not arguing that spaceland didn't have the right to do this. Of course they did. Next year, I very much hope that USPA ensures that SDC does NOT have this right, but maybe it's too late to change the rules for a DZ that already won the bid.

What I'm saying is this doesn't benefit skydivers. Allowing manufacturers to roam around giving away free t-shirts does. Don't you people like free t-shirts and pullup cords? Our gear costs too much as it is... we don't need DZs making it more expensive for manufacturers to give away free stuff or even just information.

It's not the end of the world... nobody is suggesting that it is. But like a lot of other things, including skyride, some of us see this as something that isn't good for the sport, in some tiny little way that might not even have a huge affect on anybody. Does that mean we shouldn't discuss it on a skydiving website?

Dave

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

And yet no one has yet to step up and claim to be harmed. Hmmmmm.

You already made this exact argument up-thread, and it was responded-to, Chris. Now you're just repeating yourself:

Quote

Chris, Post 193: We have yet to actually found a competitor that is being inconvenienced..

Andy, Post 195 : It's premature to say that yet (as of 10/6/09), since the Nationals will take place on 10/12/09-10/25/09. Give the feedback - if any - a chance to come in. There's also the open issue of whether this might have a chilling effect on sponsorships in the future. That may take months, or even until the 2010 Nationals, for sufficient data to come in.

LyraM45, Post 199: Exactly. I had mentioned earlier that majority of the people will not be effected at this years nationals. Maybe there won't be anybody that will be directly effected. I agree, there really aren't a whole lot of teams that walk around handing out stickers, brochures, or anything. We also can't assume that there won't be anybody effected. That's as gross as saying yes there definitely will be people effected. The fact is the opportunity for people to be effected is there. We can't predict the future, and if anything else, its the principal of the whole thing.

It's also been mentioned that there are a few people on here voicing their concerns when they have nothing to do with this years comp, but the future is exactly my point-- I am competing next year, so your damn right I am concerned about what is going on this year and if this will be the future of nationals. (though I doubt that so long as it's being held at another dz). This is OUR competition shaped by OUR concerns and voices, so right on for the people who are getting involved, and boo for the people trying to crap on that, IMO.

And as Nomad pointed out, hers is already one example of early critical feedback.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Same as everyone else here has repeated themselves. I have still not seen where this has harmed any competitors. There is an arguement that this may effect sponsorships,it might. It also just might,maybe change the way our manufacturers support our events, not to mention bring in outside money for our events.The only way that any outside major sponsors will ever buy into or sport is for our venues not to be a free for all for anyone who wants to hang a sign and pass out junk.

I can't figure out what the real complaint here is. Is it bacause you people are that pissed about not getting a free t-shirt or is it just needing to complain about The Man?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I can't figure out what the real complaint here is. Is it bacause you people are that pissed about not getting a free t-shirt or is it just needing to complain about The Man?

Yep, you've figured us out; it must be one or the other - certainly nothing else. Thanks for the cavalier dismissal.

[AggieDave 6]

Well, I've been at Nationals since Sunday morning, training on the pond and watching the weather holds. I haven't seen how this has hurt anybody. None of the competitors have really said anything about it, beyond a couple of jokes.

I will say that the swoop park is incredible and its exciting to have a DZ support ALL of nationals, not just the events they hand pick and choose that they want to host (like next year).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."