In my post on Monday, I asked about unanswered questions and the topics no one was talking about.
But as evidenced by the comments, one issue seems to be not that topics aren’t being discussed, but they’re not being tackled with enough a) focus and b) depth. We’re asking for “takeaways” and such like that. But here’s the problem: most conferences aren’t structured or timed for depth. Not at all.
Conferences as they’ve been known to date are stacked segments of short sessions – usually 45 minutes to an hour. That’s hardly enough time to cover the basics of many things, if you’re talking an overview of a broader concept, like “email marketing 101.”
If you’re tackling a super specific topic, like “creating website landing pages for ebooks” or something, that’s even less time to cover both purpose and strategy, let alone execution. Frankly, it’s nearly impossible.
Further, getting into the weeds on something in detail so that people walk away with a roadmap has certain realistic limitations. For starters:
- Every business has unique situations – from people to budgets to culture – that mean that there’s no such thing as a universally applicable set of rules to follow. Any session will be either too generalized, or specific enough to leave some people out of the discussion altogether.
- Most conferences aren’t structured to be hands-on workshops, and the revenue model and pricing tolerance of attendees doesn’t equip organizers to compensate speakers (if they do at all) at the level of consultants rather than single-session instructors. Which doesn’t provide them with much incentive to give away all their best stuff, since their business is built on the back of their detailed expertise.
- There simply isn’t enough time in typical conference sessions to cover any topic in depth, and attracting audiences at volume dictates that the sessions be shorter and broader.
See the dilemma?
We have a fundamental disconnect between what people say they want from a conference session, and what can realistically be delivered under existing models. We also have a disconnect between the content the speakers want to cover, the restless who say they want to hear “something new”, and the realistic content needs and demands of the paying audiences. I think expectations are out of whack on several fronts here.
(This doesn’t even begin to discuss the misalignment between sponsor expectations (read: quantity of focused decision makers in a room paired with quality interaction) and revenue models that require lots of sponsors and volume registrations to even break into the black. That’s a separate post altogether.)
The model itself is probably broken, but I think we need to re-examine our intentions as conference goers, for starters. Are you really expecting your $500 or your $1500 and an hour of social media basics to suddenly take the work away and give you all the tools and instructions you need to succeed?
And organizers, how are the realities of profitability driving you into mainstreaming content? Are you ready and willing to take on creating a different kind of event that delivers deeper education vs. massive audiences? Is it financially viable to do so? How do you balance depth of content and trying to be universally attractive?
I’m still focused on how I can keep making sessions relevant and valuable, and uncovering the topics we need to talk more about while maintaining balance in the old topics that need reframing. I really am, and I’m hoping folks that attend them come away with an idea or two. But somehow, 45 minutes doesn’t seem like enough (and sometimes, days and weeks don’t seem sufficient, either).
Then again, TED talks can shift your perspective on a dime, and they’re a mere ten minutes long. But do they inspire specific action, or intellectual exercise to discover the path for yourself? Perhaps the magic lies somewhere in between.
What purpose are you seeing for the sessions you attend? Are you expecting to walk away a road map, or a thought spark? If the former, are you willing to devote the time, attention span, and money toward seeking out that immersion instead of chasing the latest Eventbrite discount code?
Do you see what I’m ruminating on here? What say you?
Amber:
Totally agree with you that the conference model as you describe it is broke and not planned for real learning. It’s based on the industrial revolution model of education, enter a room, take a seat, listen, pay attention, do what teacher says, leave room and everyone produces the same thing.
I’ve seen some great examples of conferences and events that have offered a variety of education sessions so they can provide depth of knowledge for attendees. Liz Strauss SOBcon conference and Scott Gould’s Like Minds are two examples of different models to allow for great learning and retention.
Until attendees stop paying for the buffet smorgasboard style of conference that you describe, people will continue to offer them.
.-= Jeff Hurt´s last blog ..Four Things To Consider Before Adding A New Show Or Conference =-.
The difference is that through our education system, the learning is deliberately spread out over a longer period of time in order to foster depth. We’re trying to replicate that in a single shot session at an event that’s full of other stuff, and that’s just not useful I don’t think.
Some people WANT the depth, others don’t. We’ve got to do a better job of laying out expectations on both sides to make sure that everyone can focus on what they want and know what they’re getting when they sign on to an event or a session.
Amber:
Totally agree with you that the conference model as you describe it is broke and not planned for real learning. It’s based on the industrial revolution model of education, enter a room, take a seat, listen, pay attention, do what teacher says, leave room and everyone produces the same thing.
I’ve seen some great examples of conferences and events that have offered a variety of education sessions so they can provide depth of knowledge for attendees. Liz Strauss SOBcon conference and Scott Gould’s Like Minds are two examples of different models to allow for great learning and retention.
Until attendees stop paying for the buffet smorgasboard style of conference that you describe, people will continue to offer them.
.-= Jeff Hurt´s last blog ..Four Things To Consider Before Adding A New Show Or Conference =-.
The difference is that through our education system, the learning is deliberately spread out over a longer period of time in order to foster depth. We’re trying to replicate that in a single shot session at an event that’s full of other stuff, and that’s just not useful I don’t think.
Some people WANT the depth, others don’t. We’ve got to do a better job of laying out expectations on both sides to make sure that everyone can focus on what they want and know what they’re getting when they sign on to an event or a session.
I’m right here with you – as well as Jeff above (Hi Jeff!)
The problem here is that most of Social Media (hey, were even doing it now) is based on content consumption. The more frequent, diverse, and spreadable the content, the better.
So now wonder then that when Jeff Pulver holds 140conf, there are 50+ speakers each with 10 minutes each or so – because hey, we want CONTENT! And if the audience wants content, the organisers will give it, and the speakers will push it.
Of course we know that in actual fact we don’t want content as much as we want depth and action – and when people are sat in the conference, that is what they need. I completely agree.
But which event organisers are going to buck the trend and not have a host of speakers, but instead provide depth – because it sure won’t make you the money or get you the exposure that you get the old way. With Like MInds we make so little – but we can afford to because we are here to innovate.
The way that we are doing this is by running what we call Like Minds Immersive – monthly in depth training sessions that compliment the main Conference (http://immersive.wearelikeminds.com). Olivier with Red Chair is doing the same.
I think a two pronged approach is needed. I also believe that these deeper sessions work better with fewer attendees who can share their learning with each other – this gives each attendee (or participant, as I call them), the chance to hear from others in the group who might have more experience in their area than the speaker does.
So like Jeff says – until people stop paying for them, people won’t stop offering them
.-= Scott Gould´s last blog ..10 Dos and Don’ts for Social Media Campaigning in the General Election =-.
Scott, I like the model you’re fostering. But it’s not for everyone, either.
I feel like the current model of conference can still work, but only if it’s perfectly clear to the attendees that the sessions are intended to be overviews to spark ideas, not workshops to work through issues or challenges in detail. The opposite would be an event like yours, where you’ll have to get a commitment from the participants on the front end that they’re signing up for something rigorous and in-depth, and not a “buffet”.
Perhaps it comes back to a much more fundamental problem: We’re not communicating the intent of our events well enough? Or the session design? Or asking attendees enough about their expectations?
I know we can’t please everyone with every event, so I’m musing about how to better articulate what we’re in it for on both ends to make sure that there are multiple models to suit multiple tastes.
Well we have different top level events:
“Conference” (full day or 2 day event)
“Conversation” (international aftenoon event)
“Immersive” (afternoon intense learning event)
“Summit” (day roundtable)
Each of these caters to a different need. Then within the “Conference” and the “Conversations” we have different sessions that cater to different learning types.
Crtitically, no one is an attendee. Everyone is a participation, which means 1] retention is increased by shared learning, and 2] broader experience and expertise is imparted by shared learning
Of course we can’t please everyone, nor do we intend to. Our brand and organisation is not for beginners. It’s for thinkers and doers who are innovating.
But this is nothing new and I’m sure you’ve played with various formats before – so perhaps I’m not understanding what you’re saying!
I’m right here with you – as well as Jeff above (Hi Jeff!)
The problem here is that most of Social Media (hey, were even doing it now) is based on content consumption. The more frequent, diverse, and spreadable the content, the better.
So now wonder then that when Jeff Pulver holds 140conf, there are 50+ speakers each with 10 minutes each or so – because hey, we want CONTENT! And if the audience wants content, the organisers will give it, and the speakers will push it.
Of course we know that in actual fact we don’t want content as much as we want depth and action – and when people are sat in the conference, that is what they need. I completely agree.
But which event organisers are going to buck the trend and not have a host of speakers, but instead provide depth – because it sure won’t make you the money or get you the exposure that you get the old way. With Like MInds we make so little – but we can afford to because we are here to innovate.
The way that we are doing this is by running what we call Like Minds Immersive – monthly in depth training sessions that compliment the main Conference (http://immersive.wearelikeminds.com). Olivier with Red Chair is doing the same.
I think a two pronged approach is needed. I also believe that these deeper sessions work better with fewer attendees who can share their learning with each other – this gives each attendee (or participant, as I call them), the chance to hear from others in the group who might have more experience in their area than the speaker does.
So like Jeff says – until people stop paying for them, people won’t stop offering them
.-= Scott Gould´s last blog ..10 Dos and Don’ts for Social Media Campaigning in the General Election =-.
Scott, I like the model you’re fostering. But it’s not for everyone, either.
I feel like the current model of conference can still work, but only if it’s perfectly clear to the attendees that the sessions are intended to be overviews to spark ideas, not workshops to work through issues or challenges in detail. The opposite would be an event like yours, where you’ll have to get a commitment from the participants on the front end that they’re signing up for something rigorous and in-depth, and not a “buffet”.
Perhaps it comes back to a much more fundamental problem: We’re not communicating the intent of our events well enough? Or the session design? Or asking attendees enough about their expectations?
I know we can’t please everyone with every event, so I’m musing about how to better articulate what we’re in it for on both ends to make sure that there are multiple models to suit multiple tastes.
Well we have different top level events:
“Conference” (full day or 2 day event)
“Conversation” (international aftenoon event)
“Immersive” (afternoon intense learning event)
“Summit” (day roundtable)
Each of these caters to a different need. Then within the “Conference” and the “Conversations” we have different sessions that cater to different learning types.
Crtitically, no one is an attendee. Everyone is a participation, which means 1] retention is increased by shared learning, and 2] broader experience and expertise is imparted by shared learning
Of course we can’t please everyone, nor do we intend to. Our brand and organisation is not for beginners. It’s for thinkers and doers who are innovating.
But this is nothing new and I’m sure you’ve played with various formats before – so perhaps I’m not understanding what you’re saying!
The hard truth is that in depth, hands-on workshops are much harder to sell than smorgasbord style events and are more sensitive to economic cycles. We can’t say that the “model is broken” because there is no single model and plenty of conferences of every stripe are doing well. We can say though that the field is ripe for innovation. For instance, I’ve found that regional or local events staged simultaneously or in series with some portions of the content delivered virtually can overcome the economic barriers to audience acquisition and content delivery.
Roger – you’re right about that. And fair enough that perhaps the current model isn’t broken, but I think we’re perhaps not doing a very good job of articulating realistically what these events are.
If it’s a buffet-style conference with lots of overview sessions intended to stimulate ideas but not dive in depth, say so. Selling these events as “getting tangible takeaways” is a little dicey if, at best, your session length and breadth can only offer one or two concrete ideas for everyone. I think that’s perfectly FINE, I just think we need to make sure that participants are expecting that.
Likewise, the workshops that are harder sells are that because they take attention span, commitment, and time. Which makes them harder to make financially viable.
You’ve got some good ideas brewing. My point isn’t that I have all the answers, but I think there are some more questions that need asking. I appreciate your lending your perspective and comments.
The hard truth is that in depth, hands-on workshops are much harder to sell than smorgasbord style events and are more sensitive to economic cycles. We can’t say that the “model is broken” because there is no single model and plenty of conferences of every stripe are doing well. We can say though that the field is ripe for innovation. For instance, I’ve found that regional or local events staged simultaneously or in series with some portions of the content delivered virtually can overcome the economic barriers to audience acquisition and content delivery.
Roger – you’re right about that. And fair enough that perhaps the current model isn’t broken, but I think we’re perhaps not doing a very good job of articulating realistically what these events are.
If it’s a buffet-style conference with lots of overview sessions intended to stimulate ideas but not dive in depth, say so. Selling these events as “getting tangible takeaways” is a little dicey if, at best, your session length and breadth can only offer one or two concrete ideas for everyone. I think that’s perfectly FINE, I just think we need to make sure that participants are expecting that.
Likewise, the workshops that are harder sells are that because they take attention span, commitment, and time. Which makes them harder to make financially viable.
You’ve got some good ideas brewing. My point isn’t that I have all the answers, but I think there are some more questions that need asking. I appreciate your lending your perspective and comments.
“Conferences as they’ve been known to date are stacked segments of short sessions – usually 45 minutes to an hour. That’s hardly enough time to cover the basics of many things, if you’re talking an overview of a broader concept, like “email marketing 101.”
Amber I’m not sure that making the sessions longer is the answer. I can’t speak for anyone else, but there are very few topics that I can sit through for more than 90 mins or so. Most of the time 45 mins is perfect.
I think the problem with most conferences is that they don’t do enough to foster interaction between attendees. They throw a few hundred strangers together, and expect them to sit through sessions from ‘experts’ and learn something. But IMO a great deal of the learning comes from discussing ideas with OTHER ATTENDEES. This is why I think attendees need to add more networking events (but in a fun way), so introverts like me can get to know each other, and be more comfortable discussing and comparing ideas.
Last year at Social South the format was that in the morning there would be the standard Social Media 101 and 102 sessions. But in the afternoon, we’d have roomwide discussions on the topics covered during the morning. That ensured that the attendees got to ask the experts plus EACH OTHER questions. And as a result, they LEARNED MORE.
And what do most people view as the ‘must attend’ event in the social media space? SXSWi. Why? Cause of all the great CONVERSATIONS you get to have with everyone. That’s because everyone comes to SXSWi already knowing a lot of people.
I’d opt for more opportunities for attendees to interact with each other before I would longer sessions.
.-= mack collier´s last blog ..How to write blog posts your readers will fall in love with =-.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily suggesting that longer sessions are the answer, either, but here’s what I’m reacting to.
I hear so many conference folks say that they didn’t get enough detail out of the sessions they attend. They want to walk away practically with a how-to on the topic they attend. That’s not possible in a 45 minute session, but to your point, few people have the interest or attention span to sit through an immersive workshop that’s longer than that. There’s a reason university courses are spread out over a full semester.
So I’m saying that one hand, the attendees need to temper their expectations for what they’re going to get from a conference session. It’s not the same as hiring a consultant to road map things for you, and expecting that is a road to disappointment. And unless you’re looking for and committed to a longer workshop in detail, asking presenters and conference organizers to try and jam those deliverables into a session that’s designed to be an overview or introduction isn’t realistic.
I do like your point, however, about interactions. That’s why the un-conference model is so successful when the content is good; the dialogue, interaction, and back and forth is really valuable. But I’ll also throw back that the fluffy idea of “Conversations” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Yes, good learning can happen that way, but without a strong discussion leader to keep the topic on track, there’s a vast difference between socializing and in-depth learning that sends people away with practical, applicable knowledge.
“Conferences as they’ve been known to date are stacked segments of short sessions – usually 45 minutes to an hour. That’s hardly enough time to cover the basics of many things, if you’re talking an overview of a broader concept, like “email marketing 101.”
Amber I’m not sure that making the sessions longer is the answer. I can’t speak for anyone else, but there are very few topics that I can sit through for more than 90 mins or so. Most of the time 45 mins is perfect.
I think the problem with most conferences is that they don’t do enough to foster interaction between attendees. They throw a few hundred strangers together, and expect them to sit through sessions from ‘experts’ and learn something. But IMO a great deal of the learning comes from discussing ideas with OTHER ATTENDEES. This is why I think attendees need to add more networking events (but in a fun way), so introverts like me can get to know each other, and be more comfortable discussing and comparing ideas.
Last year at Social South the format was that in the morning there would be the standard Social Media 101 and 102 sessions. But in the afternoon, we’d have roomwide discussions on the topics covered during the morning. That ensured that the attendees got to ask the experts plus EACH OTHER questions. And as a result, they LEARNED MORE.
And what do most people view as the ‘must attend’ event in the social media space? SXSWi. Why? Cause of all the great CONVERSATIONS you get to have with everyone. That’s because everyone comes to SXSWi already knowing a lot of people.
I’d opt for more opportunities for attendees to interact with each other before I would longer sessions.
.-= mack collier´s last blog ..How to write blog posts your readers will fall in love with =-.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily suggesting that longer sessions are the answer, either, but here’s what I’m reacting to.
I hear so many conference folks say that they didn’t get enough detail out of the sessions they attend. They want to walk away practically with a how-to on the topic they attend. That’s not possible in a 45 minute session, but to your point, few people have the interest or attention span to sit through an immersive workshop that’s longer than that. There’s a reason university courses are spread out over a full semester.
So I’m saying that one hand, the attendees need to temper their expectations for what they’re going to get from a conference session. It’s not the same as hiring a consultant to road map things for you, and expecting that is a road to disappointment. And unless you’re looking for and committed to a longer workshop in detail, asking presenters and conference organizers to try and jam those deliverables into a session that’s designed to be an overview or introduction isn’t realistic.
I do like your point, however, about interactions. That’s why the un-conference model is so successful when the content is good; the dialogue, interaction, and back and forth is really valuable. But I’ll also throw back that the fluffy idea of “Conversations” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Yes, good learning can happen that way, but without a strong discussion leader to keep the topic on track, there’s a vast difference between socializing and in-depth learning that sends people away with practical, applicable knowledge.
Yes, yes and yes. (did I mention, yes?)
I’m tired of being talked to… I actually want to be an INTEGRAL part of a conversation that moves something (an idea, a thought) forward.
There IS a place for only education. There is a market that needs that kind of directed learning.
But what about the rest of us? I want to interact with the ideas presented, challenge them, learn from them, blow them up and put them back together and ultimately create a new perspective for myself. I can’t do that sitting in panel, keynote, or even in Q & A.
In grade school, teachers 1) first explain the concept to students, and 2) give them activities to engage them with the topic. Then, 3) they ask them to critically think and respond to what they have learned.
So why in the conference world, do we stop at number 1?
Simply put: because not everyone wants what you (we) want. Some people are perfectly happy with the glossed overview type buffet conferences (as the gents discuss above).
So to me, what we’re really uncovering is a need to clearly define and articulate different event models: one that’s more of what we’re accustomed to, one that’s more what you and Mack are asking for (teach + discuss/interact) and one that’s all immersion learning (like a fully facilitated workshop, a la Scott’s events). Maybe there’s more, and hybrids.
For instance, we’re all used to multiple tracks at a conference. Perhaps there could be a track for each different type of LEARNING instead of different topic tracks, to see what works best? One that’s a standard track, one that’s the teach and learn, and one that’s perhaps two half-day immersion workshops on topics? All at the same event?
I’m not sure. I’m just really chewing on this because I think there are better ways to build on what we’ve started. And my gears are turning again thanks to you guys. 🙂
Agreed. Different strokes for different folks, eh?
I know not everyone wants to blow ideas up (why not? I will never understand)…
But I like what you’re chewing on here & now you’ve got me thinking, too.
Yes, yes and yes. (did I mention, yes?)
I’m tired of being talked to… I actually want to be an INTEGRAL part of a conversation that moves something (an idea, a thought) forward.
There IS a place for only education. There is a market that needs that kind of directed learning.
But what about the rest of us? I want to interact with the ideas presented, challenge them, learn from them, blow them up and put them back together and ultimately create a new perspective for myself. I can’t do that sitting in panel, keynote, or even in Q & A.
In grade school, teachers 1) first explain the concept to students, and 2) give them activities to engage them with the topic. Then, 3) they ask them to critically think and respond to what they have learned.
So why in the conference world, do we stop at number 1?
Simply put: because not everyone wants what you (we) want. Some people are perfectly happy with the glossed overview type buffet conferences (as the gents discuss above).
So to me, what we’re really uncovering is a need to clearly define and articulate different event models: one that’s more of what we’re accustomed to, one that’s more what you and Mack are asking for (teach + discuss/interact) and one that’s all immersion learning (like a fully facilitated workshop, a la Scott’s events). Maybe there’s more, and hybrids.
For instance, we’re all used to multiple tracks at a conference. Perhaps there could be a track for each different type of LEARNING instead of different topic tracks, to see what works best? One that’s a standard track, one that’s the teach and learn, and one that’s perhaps two half-day immersion workshops on topics? All at the same event?
I’m not sure. I’m just really chewing on this because I think there are better ways to build on what we’ve started. And my gears are turning again thanks to you guys. 🙂
Agreed. Different strokes for different folks, eh?
I know not everyone wants to blow ideas up (why not? I will never understand)…
But I like what you’re chewing on here & now you’ve got me thinking, too.
Mack hit the nail square on the head. Social South was considered a success largely because of the roomwide discussion sessions that Mack recommended and helped put together. It made more sense than any other format. If the practice of social media is centered around enabling and engaging in conversation, shouldn’t your learning sessions be as well? I look forward to the conversation on this topic as we begin planning for this year’s Social South with the goal of making it the most unique and valuable learning experience available.
But playing Devil’s advocate, Scott – Mack hit the nail on the head for you. And for him. And probably for me.
But not for everyone.
Which is why what I’m pushing here is the notion of no one right answer, but exploration of what types of events suit which kinds of audiences, skill levels, interests, topics, industries….see what I mean?
Yeah, we all stump speech that we want discussion and interactivity, but I’ve been at plenty of events where that model would fall FLAT on its face, because the participants want to be taught, not immersed.
I think I need to amend my statement about the current model being broken, and say instead that the current model isn’t sufficient to meet everyone’s needs.
Amber & Mack
First of all…Amber thank you for this post! Again…reaching into our brains.
It was out of our frustration with this very issue that Kate Buck & I decided to create the “VS.” Conference. It is what others are not…intense, deep & participatory.
We were tired of the short “gloss-over” sessions which never seem to quite answer the questions along with pitifully short Q&A portions.
So we made our own! 🙂
If you will forgive a link here, This is what we created to address this issue: http://pinqued.com/upcoming-events/
Mack… We TOTALLY agree with you that the value is in the conversation.
Thanks again Amber!
Jen Wojcik
Pinqued
.-= Jen Wojcik´s last blog ..@ThatDrew #BWE09 BayBay! =-.
Amber & Mack
First of all…Amber thank you for this post! Again…reaching into our brains.
It was out of our frustration with this very issue that Kate Buck & I decided to create the “VS.” Conference. It is what others are not…intense, deep & participatory.
We were tired of the short “gloss-over” sessions which never seem to quite answer the questions along with pitifully short Q&A portions.
So we made our own! 🙂
If you will forgive a link here, This is what we created to address this issue: http://pinqued.com/upcoming-events/
Mack… We TOTALLY agree with you that the value is in the conversation.
Thanks again Amber!
Jen Wojcik
Pinqued
.-= Jen Wojcik´s last blog ..@ThatDrew #BWE09 BayBay! =-.
But playing Devil’s advocate, Scott – Mack hit the nail on the head for you. And for him. And probably for me.
But not for everyone.
Which is why what I’m pushing here is the notion of no one right answer, but exploration of what types of events suit which kinds of audiences, skill levels, interests, topics, industries….see what I mean?
Yeah, we all stump speech that we want discussion and interactivity, but I’ve been at plenty of events where that model would fall FLAT on its face, because the participants want to be taught, not immersed.
I think I need to amend my statement about the current model being broken, and say instead that the current model isn’t sufficient to meet everyone’s needs.
Hi Amber, first, love the post and the comments I am reading. I agree with Mack on a few things. I’ve been a “conference manager” for more than 20 years. Sometimes when you promote the conference as Pow and Wow, you get just that, Pow and Wow and very little learning. If you take Oliver Blanchard’s Red Chair model, he intentionally promotes his to be less than 125 people in order to facilitate greater interaction, participation and learning.
We do have sessions every 45 minutes with unGeekedElite — but we are taking the approach of shorter presentations ( no long slide shows) and more interaction by encouraging/insisting that are keynoters and presenters give the attendees longer than 10 minutes FAQs. We are also limiting the crowd to 250 attendees — to make the most of learning — but with the understanding that you can never be too strategic because the time allotted does not allow for that type of learning environment.
Each conference, forum or seminar needs to find their own ground based on their crowd, keynote topics, and core topics.
It’s a challenge. But at the end of the day whatever your goal you need to ensure that the attendees knew the goal of the conference, know what their reasons are for attending and walked away satisfied with both.
.-= @thatwomanc_soho´s last blog ..Working Out the Situation with Customers =-.
Hi Amber, first, love the post and the comments I am reading. I agree with Mack on a few things. I’ve been a “conference manager” for more than 20 years. Sometimes when you promote the conference as Pow and Wow, you get just that, Pow and Wow and very little learning. If you take Oliver Blanchard’s Red Chair model, he intentionally promotes his to be less than 125 people in order to facilitate greater interaction, participation and learning.
We do have sessions every 45 minutes with unGeekedElite — but we are taking the approach of shorter presentations ( no long slide shows) and more interaction by encouraging/insisting that are keynoters and presenters give the attendees longer than 10 minutes FAQs. We are also limiting the crowd to 250 attendees — to make the most of learning — but with the understanding that you can never be too strategic because the time allotted does not allow for that type of learning environment.
Each conference, forum or seminar needs to find their own ground based on their crowd, keynote topics, and core topics.
It’s a challenge. But at the end of the day whatever your goal you need to ensure that the attendees knew the goal of the conference, know what their reasons are for attending and walked away satisfied with both.
.-= @thatwomanc_soho´s last blog ..Working Out the Situation with Customers =-.
I think there is need for a new kind of conference or not even a conference but a workshop. I’m part of a Web Analytics group that instead of organizing conferences it organizes sessions where we study a specific subjetct during 3 hours and where case studies are presented and hacked to be imrpvoed. I think this model works better, it’s much more useful to get deep knowledge of a subject. Conference model of 1 hours presentations is not good and shouldn’t be considered as something for education. I really don’t see much value in 1 hour talks unless they’re just willin to put the spark and lead you to learn more somewhere else.
IMHO the conference model needs to be separated with the workshop model and there needs to be some kind of academic learning too. It can be an on-line academy or a weekend of 3 hour workshops around one specific subject. If we follow any of this models we can guarantee that we’ve gained some deep knowledge in some subject rather than being aware of many ideas (as the current model does). This new models will have to cost a bit more and requiere different schedules. I’m not sure if it can achieve a mass as conferences do, but for sure it will be useful and if it can achieve that mass it will have to be expensive.
.-= Jorge´s last blog ..Business Models should include a revenue model: Avoid the next bubble and make the hard money =-.
I think there is need for a new kind of conference or not even a conference but a workshop. I’m part of a Web Analytics group that instead of organizing conferences it organizes sessions where we study a specific subjetct during 3 hours and where case studies are presented and hacked to be imrpvoed. I think this model works better, it’s much more useful to get deep knowledge of a subject. Conference model of 1 hours presentations is not good and shouldn’t be considered as something for education. I really don’t see much value in 1 hour talks unless they’re just willin to put the spark and lead you to learn more somewhere else.
IMHO the conference model needs to be separated with the workshop model and there needs to be some kind of academic learning too. It can be an on-line academy or a weekend of 3 hour workshops around one specific subject. If we follow any of this models we can guarantee that we’ve gained some deep knowledge in some subject rather than being aware of many ideas (as the current model does). This new models will have to cost a bit more and requiere different schedules. I’m not sure if it can achieve a mass as conferences do, but for sure it will be useful and if it can achieve that mass it will have to be expensive.
.-= Jorge´s last blog ..Business Models should include a revenue model: Avoid the next bubble and make the hard money =-.
Great discussion folks…. let me toss in my 02 and another format that I’ve not seen anywhere but might be interesting.
First my o2: I think conferences like TED work with their short presentations because IMHO TED is designed to inspire more than inform. Thus, short, punchy preso’s by brilliant people make you go Ahhhhh. I’ve never been but I’m guessing those preso’s inspire some pretty incredible, deep dive convos after hours, at dinner/lunch/breaks, etc.
However, for most conferences, they pass themselves off as information delivery/reception opportunities. So folks register and expect that “Here is how to do it” presentation filled with deep knowledge, insights and direction. But as Amber rightly notes, it is impossible. 45 min sounds like a long time until you start talking then you realize it is a blink of the eye. And the folks giving away the info would much rather you pay them for it.
So maybe there is a different format that kind of works for “everyone”
You bring in truly great speakers that are not just the “big names” in a space. They are truly brilliant “teachers” with something important to say/share. So often you bring up a conference agenda and it’s the same folks talking at all the same conferences. Conf organizers should reach deeper into the speaker pool.
So now you’ve got all of these speakers and their job is to present in 30 minutes or less a compelling reason why attendees should want to PAY for the opportunity to attend the speaker’s afternoon “workshop” session. I’m not talking a sales pitch (cause that wouldn’t work) I’m suggesting they bring their A game and demonstrate via knowledge/insight why the attendees would do well to spend more time with this person talking about this topic.
This second session is hands on, deep dive, interactive educational type session. And yes, attendees PAY for the opp to get some really serious knowledge at a fraction of the cost of paying the speaker their “day rate.” In fact, they pay the presenter directly via paypayl, iPhone credit card swipe machine or something arranged via the conf organizer. But to be clear – the speaker makes money on this second session. It’s a very highly (if he/she persuasive) paid gig. This way, conf organizers can get away with only paying a speaker’s travel costs and the speaker can (if they’re good) make a decent payday for their effort.
If an attendee doesn’t find any of the speakers worthy of extra dollars, they can just network and hang out with other attendees. BUT if the conf organizer has done their job right… every attendee ought to find someone worth paying for knowledge.
A rough concept — yes…but would love to hear this groups thoughts.
@TomMartin
http://www.HelpMyBrand.com
.-= tom martin´s last blog ..Tell Me What Sucks =-.
Great discussion folks…. let me toss in my 02 and another format that I’ve not seen anywhere but might be interesting.
First my o2: I think conferences like TED work with their short presentations because IMHO TED is designed to inspire more than inform. Thus, short, punchy preso’s by brilliant people make you go Ahhhhh. I’ve never been but I’m guessing those preso’s inspire some pretty incredible, deep dive convos after hours, at dinner/lunch/breaks, etc.
However, for most conferences, they pass themselves off as information delivery/reception opportunities. So folks register and expect that “Here is how to do it” presentation filled with deep knowledge, insights and direction. But as Amber rightly notes, it is impossible. 45 min sounds like a long time until you start talking then you realize it is a blink of the eye. And the folks giving away the info would much rather you pay them for it.
So maybe there is a different format that kind of works for “everyone”
You bring in truly great speakers that are not just the “big names” in a space. They are truly brilliant “teachers” with something important to say/share. So often you bring up a conference agenda and it’s the same folks talking at all the same conferences. Conf organizers should reach deeper into the speaker pool.
So now you’ve got all of these speakers and their job is to present in 30 minutes or less a compelling reason why attendees should want to PAY for the opportunity to attend the speaker’s afternoon “workshop” session. I’m not talking a sales pitch (cause that wouldn’t work) I’m suggesting they bring their A game and demonstrate via knowledge/insight why the attendees would do well to spend more time with this person talking about this topic.
This second session is hands on, deep dive, interactive educational type session. And yes, attendees PAY for the opp to get some really serious knowledge at a fraction of the cost of paying the speaker their “day rate.” In fact, they pay the presenter directly via paypayl, iPhone credit card swipe machine or something arranged via the conf organizer. But to be clear – the speaker makes money on this second session. It’s a very highly (if he/she persuasive) paid gig. This way, conf organizers can get away with only paying a speaker’s travel costs and the speaker can (if they’re good) make a decent payday for their effort.
If an attendee doesn’t find any of the speakers worthy of extra dollars, they can just network and hang out with other attendees. BUT if the conf organizer has done their job right… every attendee ought to find someone worth paying for knowledge.
A rough concept — yes…but would love to hear this groups thoughts.
@TomMartin
http://www.HelpMyBrand.com
.-= tom martin´s last blog ..Tell Me What Sucks =-.
I think forums for pre-conference interaction might help with expectations for both speakers and attendees.
Imagine logging into a conferences web site and having the option of marking topics you’d like to discuss with other attendees and learning the names of people that have marked the same issues. You arrive armed with a list of people to connect with.
Imagine having the opportunity to mention challenges you’re facing, what you hope to learn from a particular session and bring able to direct questions or to the speakers ahead of time. The speaker gets the benefit of knowing whether their presentation is on target for the audience.
.-= Sara McGuyer´s last blog ..sara_mc: Love this photo, I miss seeing this view of Chicago when I walked my dog around Foster Beach: http://bit.ly/cdYXVh =-.
I think forums for pre-conference interaction might help with expectations for both speakers and attendees.
Imagine logging into a conferences web site and having the option of marking topics you’d like to discuss with other attendees and learning the names of people that have marked the same issues. You arrive armed with a list of people to connect with.
Imagine having the opportunity to mention challenges you’re facing, what you hope to learn from a particular session and bring able to direct questions or to the speakers ahead of time. The speaker gets the benefit of knowing whether their presentation is on target for the audience.
.-= Sara McGuyer´s last blog ..sara_mc: Love this photo, I miss seeing this view of Chicago when I walked my dog around Foster Beach: http://bit.ly/cdYXVh =-.
When I attend a conference, before attending, I set an internal expectation to learn from everyone: fellow attendees as well as the conference hosts/speakers.
It’s a bit backward, but I look into my toolkit, see what’s missing and prioritize for myself what I need to learn/add to the tool kit. I cross-reference against that against what I’m able to absorb and implement and then I attend the conference.
While there, I remain open to unexpected opportunities to network and help someone else.
Perhaps it’s naive, but I don’t expect to learn everything at any conference. My brain can only absorb so much at a given time.
.-= mckra1g´s last blog ..mckra1g: Many thx @IrinaJordan @vcaremkt @manamica for this morning’s mentions, convo! =-.
When I attend a conference, before attending, I set an internal expectation to learn from everyone: fellow attendees as well as the conference hosts/speakers.
It’s a bit backward, but I look into my toolkit, see what’s missing and prioritize for myself what I need to learn/add to the tool kit. I cross-reference against that against what I’m able to absorb and implement and then I attend the conference.
While there, I remain open to unexpected opportunities to network and help someone else.
Perhaps it’s naive, but I don’t expect to learn everything at any conference. My brain can only absorb so much at a given time.
.-= mckra1g´s last blog ..mckra1g: Many thx @IrinaJordan @vcaremkt @manamica for this morning’s mentions, convo! =-.
As a regular attendee and speaker at conferences, I’ve seen many of these issues firsthand. The issues are well laid out in Amber’s post and the subsequent comments, which also show there is no easy answer to this situation.
Apparently, people want in-depth, hands-on training that allows them to return home with productive take-aways. But they want all of this information delivered to them in sessions short enough for our currently diminished attention spans at conferences that are low-priced and offer a great venue for attendees to network.
One question then, is, are the conferences letting us down or are we, as attendees, expecting too much? Conference speakers are often brought in because they are well versed in a topic and have the ability to share information and their experiences in an engaging manner.
The way speakers deliver that information and experience may not match up to everyone’s style of learning. But the larger disconnects seem to occur when conference topic descriptions don’t match up with the actual presentation or when the presentation isn’t properly labeled based on experience level of the attendees.
What if conferences that are currently geared toward learning tracks could start including skill levels as part of the track breakdown? If conferences offered fewer topics overall but provided sessions that were available for different levels of audience experiences and skill sets, would they still be big sellers? Are audiences primarily interested in quality or quantity? I’d rather have fewer sessions that allowed me to target specific learning opportunities at my current skill level. That seems better than a smorgasbord of sessions in which I might learn a few things but, in some cases, I feel like I should be leading instead of attending.
~ Ari
@aribadler
As a regular attendee and speaker at conferences, I’ve seen many of these issues firsthand. The issues are well laid out in Amber’s post and the subsequent comments, which also show there is no easy answer to this situation.
Apparently, people want in-depth, hands-on training that allows them to return home with productive take-aways. But they want all of this information delivered to them in sessions short enough for our currently diminished attention spans at conferences that are low-priced and offer a great venue for attendees to network.
One question then, is, are the conferences letting us down or are we, as attendees, expecting too much? Conference speakers are often brought in because they are well versed in a topic and have the ability to share information and their experiences in an engaging manner.
The way speakers deliver that information and experience may not match up to everyone’s style of learning. But the larger disconnects seem to occur when conference topic descriptions don’t match up with the actual presentation or when the presentation isn’t properly labeled based on experience level of the attendees.
What if conferences that are currently geared toward learning tracks could start including skill levels as part of the track breakdown? If conferences offered fewer topics overall but provided sessions that were available for different levels of audience experiences and skill sets, would they still be big sellers? Are audiences primarily interested in quality or quantity? I’d rather have fewer sessions that allowed me to target specific learning opportunities at my current skill level. That seems better than a smorgasbord of sessions in which I might learn a few things but, in some cases, I feel like I should be leading instead of attending.
~ Ari
@aribadler
amber, I have thought alot about this subject, even organized what i consider to be the most powerful seminar format
just made you a lil movie describing what i think works and why.
heres the embed
and if that doesent work, heres the link to youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6zT0C7rRDE
thanks and take care,
Bryan
amber, I have thought alot about this subject, even organized what i consider to be the most powerful seminar format
just made you a lil movie describing what i think works and why.
heres the embed
and if that doesent work, heres the link to youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6zT0C7rRDE
thanks and take care,
Bryan
I think you hit the nail on the head with your response above – communicating clear expectations to delegates is the key!
The conference industry has had hard times, which they made worse by charging people to speak. So there are lots of new models emerging, from unconferences and immersives to meetups, and I think there’s an onus on us as attendees not to be sycophantic when we attend conferences, and for organisers not to be defensive when they hear criticism.
People will always believe that they get what they pay for, but this will change. I paid £40 to go to the first Media140 conference and it fundamentally changed a lot of what I was doing as a PR practitioner. I paid a lot more than that to go to Somesso, and derived huge value from it, but probably less in real terms than Media 140 (apart from lunch!)
However, the only times I’ve been really cheesed off are when I’ve taken out to attend because an event or conference has ‘advertised’ itself as one thing, but failed to communicate this to its speakers and consequently failed to deliver against expectations.
.-= Claire Thompson (claireatwaves)´s last blog ..Interview: Murray Newlands =-.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your response above – communicating clear expectations to delegates is the key!
The conference industry has had hard times, which they made worse by charging people to speak. So there are lots of new models emerging, from unconferences and immersives to meetups, and I think there’s an onus on us as attendees not to be sycophantic when we attend conferences, and for organisers not to be defensive when they hear criticism.
People will always believe that they get what they pay for, but this will change. I paid £40 to go to the first Media140 conference and it fundamentally changed a lot of what I was doing as a PR practitioner. I paid a lot more than that to go to Somesso, and derived huge value from it, but probably less in real terms than Media 140 (apart from lunch!)
However, the only times I’ve been really cheesed off are when I’ve taken out to attend because an event or conference has ‘advertised’ itself as one thing, but failed to communicate this to its speakers and consequently failed to deliver against expectations.
.-= Claire Thompson (claireatwaves)´s last blog ..Interview: Murray Newlands =-.
Interesting conversation. It occurred to me as I started turning green with SxSWi envy that I would eventually be exposed to the ideas online…that eased the green. With one of my big trade conferences coming this weekend (KBIS) I applied the same logic and considered that the most relevant reason to attend that show would be the back to back meetings (cram them in!), face time and the opportunity to establish/build relationships. I can understand it better in trades like mine, though (products to show, not everyone is plugged in online), than I can in social media.
That said (and to your point), if I were just starting to investigate things (and didn’t need the depth), the standard conference model would suffice.
I think you’re dead on with the idea that correct communication is key…
BTW, I was not familiar with TED talks…checked it out, think it’s wicked cool and appreciate the mention!
.-= Beth Coetzee´s last blog ..Tending the Gardens =-.
Interesting conversation. It occurred to me as I started turning green with SxSWi envy that I would eventually be exposed to the ideas online…that eased the green. With one of my big trade conferences coming this weekend (KBIS) I applied the same logic and considered that the most relevant reason to attend that show would be the back to back meetings (cram them in!), face time and the opportunity to establish/build relationships. I can understand it better in trades like mine, though (products to show, not everyone is plugged in online), than I can in social media.
That said (and to your point), if I were just starting to investigate things (and didn’t need the depth), the standard conference model would suffice.
I think you’re dead on with the idea that correct communication is key…
BTW, I was not familiar with TED talks…checked it out, think it’s wicked cool and appreciate the mention!
.-= Beth Coetzee´s last blog ..Tending the Gardens =-.
Particularly love this topic Amber – and the discussion it has generated in the comments.
But I have a bit of a hard time with lumping every type of event under the generic term “conference.”
Be it labeled under the title conference, seminar, summit, boot camp, unconference, camp, what-have-you – events where those of us trying to figure out Social Media in its various applications and subcategories are getting together for 5 basic reasons:
1) to network & connect with people of likeminds
2) to generate discussions that will echo out into the non-conference space afterwards
3) to learn &/or teach depending on the subject at hand
4) to get inspired & renew passion for a subject
5) for a form of legitimacy with our employers &/or potential clients (I attended/spoke at conferenceX)
So then there’s how we try to organize sessions around those goals.
I’m going to resort to bullet points here because I’m tired of typing, deleting, and retyping trying to get a particular point across (if you’ll pardon my laziness.)
– Panels — usually a high-overview with a few ‘experts’ answering questions that might have a few take-aways, but usually is a series of opinions that solidify the audience member’s viewpoint (agree/disagree).
– Keynotes — typically either an “interview” of someone viewed as an audience draw or a 1 person inspirational presentation with a key theme.
– Led Discussions — a group discussion moderated by someone(s) that is viewed as a thought leader in whatever arena the discussion centers on.
– Training Sessions — based on the corporate training model, a one person led, how-to session based on specific, repeatable steps.
– Networking sessions — cocktail parties with or without the cocktails. Basically a chance for everyone to get in the same room.
– Experimental formats — townhalls, unconference sessions, mastermind workshops – they are a little more freeform than the ones I listed above – but tend to be non-repeatable in exact form and are specific to each event.
Okay, I probably missed something… but the point I’m trying to get to is that people seem to think that panels are going to be training sessions when they fundamentally aren’t capable of it.
Expectations of a conference should center around the types of sessions planned. If you are there primarily to network & connect? Seek out events that have many of those sorts of opportunities. If you’re looking for catalysts for discussions? Seek out events with a lot of community led formats. Inspiration needed? Look for events with lots of keynotes or TED format speeches.
I guess summed up I’m saying it’s really the onus of the attendee to figure out what his/her objectives are and to choose events based on the likelihood of getting that from the event.
.-= Lucretia Pruitt´s last blog ..Another Top 10 Tips to Survive & Thrive at SXSWi =-.
Mmmm. I think there’s an onus on conference organisers (any event organisers) to be very clear about what people are getting. Sometime’s it’s almost impossible to tell
Unfortunately even the conference named in this article as a good example, Likeminds, fell foul of this in its earliest incarnation:
http://www.wavespr.com/2009/10/likeminds-2009-the-conference-with-a-marmite-effect/
(Good conference on some levels, but missed the mark in terms of what it promised and even had people asking for money back. MUST say though that the last conference looked a lot more interactive and had some terrific speakers, so NOT knocking the conference – the first one just failed to do what it said on the box)
Hey Claire –
Totally agree with you. I learned a tough lesson with over promising and under delivering.
I think part of this problem with unclarity, as I described in my moment near the top, an over the top pressure for “content” at conferences. When we place so much demand as content consumers on new content EVERYDAY, then no wonder people are scared to tie themselves into an idea that might change, or are afraid that they perhaps aren’t offering enough.
Of course, event organisers must get over this – and over their egos. And we as attendees (or participants, as I prefer to say), must communicate what our expectations are.
Would you agree?
Scott
(PS. Just to set the record straight BTW, it was ONE person who asked for a refund, because they felt they didn’t come away knowing exactly how to “make money with Twitter tomorrow”)
Yep – and the last Likeminds seemed to have really overcome a slight lack of interactivity in the first conference (largely dictated by the venue, I suspect, being stage/forum style) by allowing delegates the chance to meet folk over lunch.
How much you can expect conference customers to tell you about what they want will vary with the conference, but expecting them to say what they want in general might be a bit hard on them? A bit like saying what do you want from a car? There are some things you expect (wheels, gears, seats – speakers, seats, agenda) but after that, it’s a marketing exercise to pitch where you want it to be.
Henry Ford said that if he’s asked customers what they wanted, they’d have said faster horses. Conferences may be at the same point in terms of innovation?
(PS: BTW – don’t think the first conference did underdeliver as a whole – it was a low price conference and had the temerity to be outside of London. It just didn’t deliver what the marketing promised.)
.-= Claire Thompson (claireatwaves)´s last blog ..Interview: Murray Newlands =-.
Particularly love this topic Amber – and the discussion it has generated in the comments.
But I have a bit of a hard time with lumping every type of event under the generic term “conference.”
Be it labeled under the title conference, seminar, summit, boot camp, unconference, camp, what-have-you – events where those of us trying to figure out Social Media in its various applications and subcategories are getting together for 5 basic reasons:
1) to network & connect with people of likeminds
2) to generate discussions that will echo out into the non-conference space afterwards
3) to learn &/or teach depending on the subject at hand
4) to get inspired & renew passion for a subject
5) for a form of legitimacy with our employers &/or potential clients (I attended/spoke at conferenceX)
So then there’s how we try to organize sessions around those goals.
I’m going to resort to bullet points here because I’m tired of typing, deleting, and retyping trying to get a particular point across (if you’ll pardon my laziness.)
– Panels — usually a high-overview with a few ‘experts’ answering questions that might have a few take-aways, but usually is a series of opinions that solidify the audience member’s viewpoint (agree/disagree).
– Keynotes — typically either an “interview” of someone viewed as an audience draw or a 1 person inspirational presentation with a key theme.
– Led Discussions — a group discussion moderated by someone(s) that is viewed as a thought leader in whatever arena the discussion centers on.
– Training Sessions — based on the corporate training model, a one person led, how-to session based on specific, repeatable steps.
– Networking sessions — cocktail parties with or without the cocktails. Basically a chance for everyone to get in the same room.
– Experimental formats — townhalls, unconference sessions, mastermind workshops – they are a little more freeform than the ones I listed above – but tend to be non-repeatable in exact form and are specific to each event.
Okay, I probably missed something… but the point I’m trying to get to is that people seem to think that panels are going to be training sessions when they fundamentally aren’t capable of it.
Expectations of a conference should center around the types of sessions planned. If you are there primarily to network & connect? Seek out events that have many of those sorts of opportunities. If you’re looking for catalysts for discussions? Seek out events with a lot of community led formats. Inspiration needed? Look for events with lots of keynotes or TED format speeches.
I guess summed up I’m saying it’s really the onus of the attendee to figure out what his/her objectives are and to choose events based on the likelihood of getting that from the event.
.-= Lucretia Pruitt´s last blog ..Another Top 10 Tips to Survive & Thrive at SXSWi =-.
Mmmm. I think there’s an onus on conference organisers (any event organisers) to be very clear about what people are getting. Sometime’s it’s almost impossible to tell
Unfortunately even the conference named in this article as a good example, Likeminds, fell foul of this in its earliest incarnation:
http://www.wavespr.com/2009/10/likeminds-2009-the-conference-with-a-marmite-effect/
(Good conference on some levels, but missed the mark in terms of what it promised and even had people asking for money back. MUST say though that the last conference looked a lot more interactive and had some terrific speakers, so NOT knocking the conference – the first one just failed to do what it said on the box)
Hey Claire –
Totally agree with you. I learned a tough lesson with over promising and under delivering.
I think part of this problem with unclarity, as I described in my moment near the top, an over the top pressure for “content” at conferences. When we place so much demand as content consumers on new content EVERYDAY, then no wonder people are scared to tie themselves into an idea that might change, or are afraid that they perhaps aren’t offering enough.
Of course, event organisers must get over this – and over their egos. And we as attendees (or participants, as I prefer to say), must communicate what our expectations are.
Would you agree?
Scott
(PS. Just to set the record straight BTW, it was ONE person who asked for a refund, because they felt they didn’t come away knowing exactly how to “make money with Twitter tomorrow”)
Yep – and the last Likeminds seemed to have really overcome a slight lack of interactivity in the first conference (largely dictated by the venue, I suspect, being stage/forum style) by allowing delegates the chance to meet folk over lunch.
How much you can expect conference customers to tell you about what they want will vary with the conference, but expecting them to say what they want in general might be a bit hard on them? A bit like saying what do you want from a car? There are some things you expect (wheels, gears, seats – speakers, seats, agenda) but after that, it’s a marketing exercise to pitch where you want it to be.
Henry Ford said that if he’s asked customers what they wanted, they’d have said faster horses. Conferences may be at the same point in terms of innovation?
(PS: BTW – don’t think the first conference did underdeliver as a whole – it was a low price conference and had the temerity to be outside of London. It just didn’t deliver what the marketing promised.)
.-= Claire Thompson (claireatwaves)´s last blog ..Interview: Murray Newlands =-.
I attend events to meet people. From time to time, I’ll sit in on a talk that shifts my thinking in some important way. Those are few and far between, though.
The balancing act you describe is part of the reason. To get crunchy individualized help, you need a consultant. Workshops may be an option in some industries, but as you specialize topic selection and industry, you shrink the profit motive for the event organizer.
Sadly, I don’t have a good answer for this subject. Keep poking the monster, though. Eventually, someone will come up with a solution – or try and fail and try again…
.-= Ed Healy´s last blog ..Cheap and Compact Mobile Podcasting Rig =-.
I attend events to meet people. From time to time, I’ll sit in on a talk that shifts my thinking in some important way. Those are few and far between, though.
The balancing act you describe is part of the reason. To get crunchy individualized help, you need a consultant. Workshops may be an option in some industries, but as you specialize topic selection and industry, you shrink the profit motive for the event organizer.
Sadly, I don’t have a good answer for this subject. Keep poking the monster, though. Eventually, someone will come up with a solution – or try and fail and try again…
.-= Ed Healy´s last blog ..Cheap and Compact Mobile Podcasting Rig =-.
Thanks for this post. I do agree that conferences don’t always meet expectations and program length is certainly a part of that. I find that I am choosing my conferences more carefully these days and am more interested in the smaller events – with fewer sessions and participants – that cover a niche area more thoroughly. I also agree with mckra1g and others that the conference experience is more than just the formal sessions. I have come away from events with the networking being the real benefit. Am also much less interested in traveling to events than I used to be. More and more online options are available… but maybe that’s another post. Thanks again.
.-= Melissa Venable´s last blog ..Review: The Essentials of Instructional Design =-.
Thanks for this post. I do agree that conferences don’t always meet expectations and program length is certainly a part of that. I find that I am choosing my conferences more carefully these days and am more interested in the smaller events – with fewer sessions and participants – that cover a niche area more thoroughly. I also agree with mckra1g and others that the conference experience is more than just the formal sessions. I have come away from events with the networking being the real benefit. Am also much less interested in traveling to events than I used to be. More and more online options are available… but maybe that’s another post. Thanks again.
.-= Melissa Venable´s last blog ..Review: The Essentials of Instructional Design =-.
You’re on target with the limitations of the 45 minute format, but I don’t attend conferences for depth, I mainly go seeking tips on technique and strategy. A productive session for me is when I can write down a few phrases that spark my thought process and hopefully capture a couple of URLs to investigate later for additional content or valuable tools.
The other focus is networking, as it never fails that I meet someone at a conference and strike up a conversation that is truly enlightening. One time that occurred on the flight home. And in some cases, a long term friendship develops as we turn to social media to continue the dialogue.
.-= Global Patriot´s last blog ..Should Corporations Rule The World? =-.
You’re on target with the limitations of the 45 minute format, but I don’t attend conferences for depth, I mainly go seeking tips on technique and strategy. A productive session for me is when I can write down a few phrases that spark my thought process and hopefully capture a couple of URLs to investigate later for additional content or valuable tools.
The other focus is networking, as it never fails that I meet someone at a conference and strike up a conversation that is truly enlightening. One time that occurred on the flight home. And in some cases, a long term friendship develops as we turn to social media to continue the dialogue.
.-= Global Patriot´s last blog ..Should Corporations Rule The World? =-.
As some of you know, I’ve been wrestling with these very issues for the past 18 years, working to create conference formats that provide the most meaningful and useful experience for each individual attendee.
I learned long ago that the best conference program committees cannot predict before the event the majority of the sessions (topics, format, length) that attendees want.
So I developed a structured participant-driven format that uncovers what participants actually want to do at the start of the event.
People find it hard to believe that you can trust adult attendees to create an optimum conference program and schedule in a few hours. Well, with the right process, you can. I’ve facilitated this many times.
The results are fascinating. You get a much higher proportion of facilitated discussions than traditional conferences. You also find expertise in the group that no one was aware of and that participants want to tap-these discoveries turn into informal presentations or panels or short workshops or tours or…
It’s a different style of conference (though longer events can include traditional sessions if desired). Thousands of people have enjoyed them, because the event becomes what the participants want, not what a small, well-meaning group thinks they want.
My book that describes the how and why Conferences That Work: Creating Events That People Love was published in November, and you can find out more on http://www.conferencesthatwork.com.
Questions, particularly skeptical ones, are welcome!
.-= Adrian Segar´s last blog ..Five lessons event planners can learn from the iPad launch =-.
As some of you know, I’ve been wrestling with these very issues for the past 18 years, working to create conference formats that provide the most meaningful and useful experience for each individual attendee.
I learned long ago that the best conference program committees cannot predict before the event the majority of the sessions (topics, format, length) that attendees want.
So I developed a structured participant-driven format that uncovers what participants actually want to do at the start of the event.
People find it hard to believe that you can trust adult attendees to create an optimum conference program and schedule in a few hours. Well, with the right process, you can. I’ve facilitated this many times.
The results are fascinating. You get a much higher proportion of facilitated discussions than traditional conferences. You also find expertise in the group that no one was aware of and that participants want to tap-these discoveries turn into informal presentations or panels or short workshops or tours or…
It’s a different style of conference (though longer events can include traditional sessions if desired). Thousands of people have enjoyed them, because the event becomes what the participants want, not what a small, well-meaning group thinks they want.
My book that describes the how and why Conferences That Work: Creating Events That People Love was published in November, and you can find out more on http://www.conferencesthatwork.com.
Questions, particularly skeptical ones, are welcome!
.-= Adrian Segar´s last blog ..Five lessons event planners can learn from the iPad launch =-.
You raise completely valid points. At conferences topics will generally go one of a few ways: Self-promotion/Ads, Tactical/Procedural and Concepts/Ideas. These usually satisfy people when someone makes their points and supports it with data.
The problem lies in our field. Our field is vast, yet the needs of clients are very specific and tailored. That said, people generally tolerate that and usually make it to events for the networking more than the content.
Networking shouldn’t compete for content at events; it should compliment it and be anticipated and facilitated by event organizers.
My recommendation for a presenter is to give your presentation two directions and poll the audience. This poll could be “Who wants to know my recommendations on TOPIC? Who wants to see how we took a WIDGET company to gain 250% ROI on their TOPIC program?” This will engage and hold the audience accountable for the content they will subsequently receive.
If I hadn’t said it before, I’ll say it now. There are three types of people who attend conferences — no disrespect to them: newbies (meaning they shouldn’t be there but are), pros (meaning they are there for the networking and fist pumping on ideas) and your target audience (meaning they fit somewhere in between newbs and pros). Because of this diversity, it causes conferences to fizzle out of its expectations.
I usually attend conferences with zero expectations so I’m pleased by the company of others and like to hang out with like-minded people (and disagree with a few, too). It keeps it fun, original and unique.
I recommend if you haven’t done so already, check out PodCamp in your area. Those conferences offer a good platform to deliver strategy, tactical and light insertion of ads to monetize. People get a ton out of it.
~joe
.-= Joe Manna´s last blog ..Foursquare Marketing =-.
You raise completely valid points. At conferences topics will generally go one of a few ways: Self-promotion/Ads, Tactical/Procedural and Concepts/Ideas. These usually satisfy people when someone makes their points and supports it with data.
The problem lies in our field. Our field is vast, yet the needs of clients are very specific and tailored. That said, people generally tolerate that and usually make it to events for the networking more than the content.
Networking shouldn’t compete for content at events; it should compliment it and be anticipated and facilitated by event organizers.
My recommendation for a presenter is to give your presentation two directions and poll the audience. This poll could be “Who wants to know my recommendations on TOPIC? Who wants to see how we took a WIDGET company to gain 250% ROI on their TOPIC program?” This will engage and hold the audience accountable for the content they will subsequently receive.
If I hadn’t said it before, I’ll say it now. There are three types of people who attend conferences — no disrespect to them: newbies (meaning they shouldn’t be there but are), pros (meaning they are there for the networking and fist pumping on ideas) and your target audience (meaning they fit somewhere in between newbs and pros). Because of this diversity, it causes conferences to fizzle out of its expectations.
I usually attend conferences with zero expectations so I’m pleased by the company of others and like to hang out with like-minded people (and disagree with a few, too). It keeps it fun, original and unique.
I recommend if you haven’t done so already, check out PodCamp in your area. Those conferences offer a good platform to deliver strategy, tactical and light insertion of ads to monetize. People get a ton out of it.
~joe
.-= Joe Manna´s last blog ..Foursquare Marketing =-.
I concur with your basic premise, but would caution against your use of “most conferences” unless you’re going to offer some illustrative data. Session formats vary widely by industry or profession, and I regularly participate in conferences that are indeed hands-on deep dives on a few focused topics.
The conference industry is incredibly diverse exceeded perhaps only by the diverse needs of attendees. Some attendees no doubt like quick overview sessions that give them a pulse of issues they may need to be exploring in greater depth. In my experience, annual meetings do indeed tend to be the smorgasboard of shorter awareness-raising sessions along with pre- or post-conference sessions that offer more of a deep dive into a topic or issue.
While 60- or 90-minute sessions are restrictive in terms of how hands-on you can make them, experienced presenters know how to maximize the tangible learning that occurs in those shorter timeframes through their session design.
I concur with your basic premise, but would caution against your use of “most conferences” unless you’re going to offer some illustrative data. Session formats vary widely by industry or profession, and I regularly participate in conferences that are indeed hands-on deep dives on a few focused topics.
The conference industry is incredibly diverse exceeded perhaps only by the diverse needs of attendees. Some attendees no doubt like quick overview sessions that give them a pulse of issues they may need to be exploring in greater depth. In my experience, annual meetings do indeed tend to be the smorgasboard of shorter awareness-raising sessions along with pre- or post-conference sessions that offer more of a deep dive into a topic or issue.
While 60- or 90-minute sessions are restrictive in terms of how hands-on you can make them, experienced presenters know how to maximize the tangible learning that occurs in those shorter timeframes through their session design.
If you are attending a typical conference, with roughly 6-8 hour long sessions in a day over 1-5 days, and you expect to come away with a fully actionable, game changing plan, I think the expectations are off a bit.
For my events, I expect people to get some big questions answered, get some great networking, and see examples of what is possible, where they could be taking their efforts with the right resources/planning.
For an event like SOBcon, it is a little more narrowly focused on just blogging and focused on hands on, so attendees can very well come away with hands on planning and an actionable plan for improving their blogging efforts.
I think one way to pull off a more hands on experience for a social media conference, the topic would have to be more focused.. A social media for customer service conference for instance. Or a conference on developing consumer strategies for Facebook. I would say a 2+ day event. And an event like this would be more expensive. Not that more expensive is bad, just limits the audience.
I, personally, do not do these more focused events (yet) because the audience smaller and it is more expensive to market to or even find them.
Good conversation.
If you are attending a typical conference, with roughly 6-8 hour long sessions in a day over 1-5 days, and you expect to come away with a fully actionable, game changing plan, I think the expectations are off a bit.
For my events, I expect people to get some big questions answered, get some great networking, and see examples of what is possible, where they could be taking their efforts with the right resources/planning.
For an event like SOBcon, it is a little more narrowly focused on just blogging and focused on hands on, so attendees can very well come away with hands on planning and an actionable plan for improving their blogging efforts.
I think one way to pull off a more hands on experience for a social media conference, the topic would have to be more focused.. A social media for customer service conference for instance. Or a conference on developing consumer strategies for Facebook. I would say a 2+ day event. And an event like this would be more expensive. Not that more expensive is bad, just limits the audience.
I, personally, do not do these more focused events (yet) because the audience smaller and it is more expensive to market to or even find them.
Good conversation.