Proposal type: Hardware [ ] , Software [ ] , Other [ X ] : _________________
Planned amount 1.000 (USD):
Description:
ArduPilot will have exhibition booth at UAV EXPO 2018 (22-24th June), Shenzhen. Booth number is 7D34. We are looking to cover some of the pocket expenses.
Money will be used for:
To make 5 pcs of 80x200cm rollup banners (50 USD each)
Rent LCD TV to play videos on the booth (170 USD for 3 days)
Rent extra table/chairs to the booth (~80 USD for 3 days)
To make ecosystem picture frames, acrylic laser cut (~150 USD)
ArduPilot shirts to all speakers/booth people (~150 USD)
Other expo materials, pen, notebooks, stickers etc
Most likely that map is still a bit outtaded. ArduPilot is international association. I will check again from SZUAVIA staff and make them to update floormap. ArduPilot booth is dual booth and covers 7D34 and 7D36.
it will be reimbursement. Some of the items have been acquired/booked already, banners and other print material will go to print in next 24hrs. LCD Display/Extra tables needs to be paid at expo center.
OK. Thanks Jani. Support for this type of event really needs to be a demonstrably sound business decision, as the expectation should be that the event generates more than it costs. That requires a documented plan, rather than hope and assumptions.
Just to make sure that we cover off on this properly, can you perhaps amend your proposal to clarify the purpose, plan, cost benefit etc?
ie Purpose: Enable Ardupilot to engage with the Shen Zhen autonomous systems ecosystem, introduce developers to manufacturers, engage with consumers…all that stuff Benefits to Ardupilot: Attract new developers and partners, enable existing partners to meet with developers…etc… Engagement Plan: meetings with NN prospective partners have been coordinated, with the aim to onboard (NN-n) to the partners program during the event, and generate XX new contacts etc etc.
The booth, layout, promo materials etc needs to be focused on achieving the event goals, rather than story telling.
@OlivierB and I had a chat on the phone about the benefits/engagement plans for doing trade shows like the Shenzhen Expo and AUVSI Xponential.
At this point, there’s a fair amount of value in just being there and having a presence. In the case of the Shenzhen Expo, I think that is the core objective; however, I am not sure how to reduce this in a measurable item/KPI given that most of the audience for this show cannot be measured with ardupilot.org’s existing analytics system.
I propose that we consider two secondary objectives for this show that we can directly measure.
Have two new partners sign up within 90 days of the show resulting from us being at the show
Have two PRs come from new developers within 90 days as a result of our presence at the show
These objectives should be reasonably straightforward to measure with our existing systems. It’s also worth noting that these could be terrible objectives in reality, but lacking hindsight, I think we should give these a try for this show and see if they actually work.
@apache405 your proposal of the secondary objectives would be great way to measure results of expo and conference. Having partners to join is immediate proof that we have reached correct audience.
How many then again is another topic, naturally it should be as many as possible but we also need to look what the new partner can bring to ArduPilot ecosystem.
Having PR’s is another way but we need to remember that there will be some language barrier involved so proposed 90 days may not be sufficient for this especially on code site. On documentation site it would be more feasible to have new PR’s coming.
As for the site(s) traffic, actually it is something that we can measure. There are still traditional statistics that we can examine when more advanced systems are failing.
In light of Randy’s positive recap of the event at the dev call, and views on a promising outlook when it comes to new partners, I’d like to cast my vote in favor of this proposal. I do agree with James’s earlier comments and suggestions, though. It also appears from various conversations that some expenses may have changed or been shifted in your earlier proposal? Perhaps it can be summarily updated as James suggested, so that we can take a newer look at it?
