As I understand this, one of the benefits will be that the sponsor is giving the prizes and will be responsible for the delivery, tracking, etc.
Yes, but if we go with a straight sponsorship fee then the vendors will be paying cash, not donating prizes. Therefore, if we go that route nothing will change for the prize distribution team. The primary benefit should be more quality prizes for the membership.
If there are 2 or 3 sponsors for a contest, does that mean there will be 3 first prizes that all go to one winner?
If we go the Minimum value prize route then there could be if we let it. For Example, Freestyle Contest: 1st prize is a Wonderful Thing from Vender A, an Awesome Thing from Vendor B, so on. That happens now with the donated prizes doesn't it? Of course if we do go this route we could limit it to 1 sponsor per contest. Of course that means fewer prizes for the participants in that contest.
Might it be a better plan to see if we can get one sponsor for each contest BEFORE we allow 2 sponsors for the "freestyle" and none for casting (just an example)?
Might be. That is what this thread is about, to try and come to a consensus. There are many ways to do it and there will be pros and cons to them all. I'm trying to find at least a short term solution now that we can perfect after the Bash for the 10th. The order of stakeholder importance, as far as who should realize the most benefit from what we do, to me is 1) Member, followed closely by 2) Vendor and lastly 3)IAP because without members and vendors there is no IAP.
(in spite of the software saying your word doc was never opened, I DID open and read it, Mike!)