I don't like sponsorships, but I understand need and value they bring. Why I strongly dislike them on conferences? Usually they influence part of the content with sponsored talks/sessions. Their speakers might be great, their talks might be great but I always have a feel that they were chosen because they are sponsors. And what should I think if their talk or speaker was only OK? What if they were terrible?

I belive all sponsors should be treated same and they shouldn't influence or shape content of the conference. I have nothing against those ads being plastered on the wall (if not in insane quantity), having information desks in hallways and so on...

Why not content? Look at sponsorship in sports.

Do club sponsors influence which player will be bought? I don't think so.

Is basketball being played on a different size board because sponsors wants to put their ad on a better place?

If one sport equipment manufacturer is sponsoring sport event should (ie. Champions League, Euro 2012, NFL superbowl) players who they sponsor directly have bigger chance to play? God forbid they come with an idea that only their players can play.

If a beer manufacturer sponsors a swimming contest should it be beer instead of water in the pool? :) I belive that swimming would become much more popular if somebody decides to do this but I hope it would be done as a joke not as a real contest ..

Quality of talker or content they deliver is not important here. Only important thing is should organizers allow this?