Vendor Preferential Treatment?

Per the earlier thought, I'm ready to start giving some vendors preferential treatment.  Specifically, vendors who have shown an interest in, or connection with, CITRT activities, get an extra advantage.  OK, that's easy, but what would it take to identify those vendors who have shown interest in CITRT?

• Contributor to itDiscuss?
• Participate in podcasts?
• Participate in IRC
• Blog about info relevant to Church IT
• Participate in local roundtables (presenter or attendee)
• Offer something to the Church IT community

I think I'm willing to start slowly.  If there's *any* evidence of any of the above, that prequalifies the vendor.  Anybody else want to take this further?  I'd love one of you wordsmith types to turn this into something nice that I could email potential vendors.

Comments

[Jim Edwards]

I have to admit I'm a little concerned about going down this road. Giving some vendors a "voice" seems like it holds the potential to corrupt the over all discussion. What happens when one member says something unflattering about a specific vendors product?
I can't help but wonder if developing a tool for our members to be able to review or speak out on specific brands/vendors isn't a less bias approach to getting the same information.
What always interested me in CITRT is the collective discussion of experience and history. Inserting a vendors marketing plan or agenda could lead to corruption. It seems a lot of your desires here could probably be answered by expanding the itdiscuss.org site to include reviews of products.

Just a thought.

[Justin Moore]

Jim - I don't think Tony is indicating anything about giving vendors a voice, but rather he would choose a CITRT-connected vendor over one who isn't.

Tony - I love the idea, and even at my job in the private industry, I would choose vendors from this pool also as a way to encourage them to be more involved in CITRT. I think it might be a neat thing to have five main criteria and offer a star for each one they meet (or maybe more criteria and a special algorithm). Then you could list them on the web displaying their level of involvement.

[Tony Dye]

==>Jim, Maybe I need to clarify (as in rewrite) this. I'm not proposing that we bring vendors into CITRT as if they were normal people (boy, that's insulting, isn't it?!), only that I have people who I *prefer* to buy from.

Perhaps you're picking up on the "participate in local roundtables" and maybe I should rephrase that to "attend and listen..." Would that be better?

[Tony Dye]

==>Justin, Thanks, I think you and I had the same idea in mind. I can where I could have worded a few things better, so I need to apologize to Jim for misleading him! I like the "stars" idea. I've got a few multi-star vendors. of course, I've also got one or two zero-star vendors who I still like. It's a preference, not a final decision. (so far :-)

[John Ventry]

I know when the word vendor is mentioned that most people think CHMS. However, there are other vendors out there related to hardware, kiosks and so forth that would also be interested. Personally, I liked the format last time where vendors were allowed to attend and participate, but not sell. Sometimes vendor staff members may have good thoughts about an issue of discussion that can be passed along to the group. Tony, maybe you are referring to more of an CITRT certified vendor or something along that line. The criteria would have to go beyond just being involved financially or in some other capacity. One example would be that a vendor also hold themselves to a high ethical standard in the way that they conduct business. I would recommend coming up with some standards and maybe those standards are reviewed on an annual basis. To me, it is a win-win because it gives the CITRT even more "legitimacy" (not the term I was exactly looking for but you get the idea) and allows the vendors to be involved in a designated way. That is just my opinion though.

[Derek Berg]

I understand completely where you(we) are coming from on their CITRT involvement. I think actually making it official will only help the group and the vendors with some accountability. We're naturally going to give first ear to those that are actually doing something versus just saying they will. I can call up XYZ and they will tell me all the great things they have done for churches and other non-profits, but if their is actual proof then it really means something. An example would be Paetec giving CITRT the CoLO tour, that's above what I know my current provider would do. Doesn't cost them anything more than time, but to me that's the biggest thing a vendor can give me. As each of us has interactions with vendors and we track those we'll be able to see a history of how they act. Anyone can have a bad day and anyone can pull out a great day, I want to see what I can expect a majority of the time.