Yes, OCLC did continue its longstanding sponsorship at our highest
level (thanks OCLC!!), but folks thinking about planning should note
that we did see a 24% drop in the overall amount of sponsorship this
year (when compared to the previous year).

I don't know if that will continue or not (has the economy turned
around yet?) but it's certainly something to consider as you're
planning. Institutions with plans for increasing sponsorship, or
covering many of the costs themselves (like ASU and WCU did with the
vans and tech/video), would have a leg up, I'd think.

Fwiw,
Kevin


On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 3/3/10 3/3/10 € 7:22 AM, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Paul Joseph <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> No need to be concerned about the vendors: they're the same suspects who
>>> sponsored C4L10.
>>
>> Just to be clear on this -- the same suspects actually shelled out far
>> less for C4L10 than they had in the past.
>
> Just to clarify the clarification, OCLC continued our support at the highest
> level this year, as we have since the conference began.
> Roy
>