“Where are all the advanced events for social media professionals?”
I’ve heard this question a number of times. Practicing professionals in the social media, social business and related disciplines are looking for something other than the typical events in order to further their skills and have deeper, more sophisticated discussions about the why and how of their work.
But it’s going to take more than wishful thinking for that to happen.
1. The Undertaking
In order for this event to exist and thrive, someone has to make it happen. That means taking time out of their job, making it a large part of their job or getting permission to do so, or being willing to make it their job.
That’s not an insignificant commitment on any level. Event production is not for the faint of heart (ask Jason Falls or Jason Keath).
2. The Business Model
People also have to be willing to pay for it. The standard model of sponsorship-for-eyeballs isn’t going to work. The advanced professionals don’t want a bag full of marketing schwag or a ballroom full of vendor booths for their admission price, they want professional development. The attendance volume is likely to be much lower, reducing the mass marketing value of a broad spectrum of participants.The people underwriting the event need to understand the concentrated value in reaching a smaller, much more focused group of seasoned professionals.
The people attending the event, too, need to be willing to take a chance on an unproven quantity if it’s a nascent event and work together to make it attractive to the people paying the bills, whether it be other attendees or sponsors. The survival of great events doesn’t just depend on the big underwriters, it depends on the people who keep spending money to go, and then tell other people what they’re missing.
Even if someone, like a forward thinking company or organization, is willing to undertake an event like this as a break-even proposition, few if any will do it at a significant cost. The model to create and sustain revenue has to work, and it’s likely not the same as a typical industry conference.
3. The Content
Then, the speakers have to be at a caliber that will cost significantly to secure. Peer learning can be part of this, but if we’re asking to be challenged and taught as professionals who have been at this a while, we need accomplished people who are also outstanding teachers and presenters (and as we all know, a longtime practicing professional does not a quality speaker make).
We also – maybe more so – need perspectives from experts outside our industry teaching us things that impact our work. Organizational design. Finance. Management and leadership of teams. Critical thinking. Things that aren’t about social anything per se but are making us better professionals and business owners. The kinds of people that we want to learn from are going to come with contracts, fees, and sound expectations for the caliber of event in which they’ll be participating. If they’re willing to do it for nothing, they’re going to need to believe very much in the purpose and vision of the event in order to invest their time and reputation in helping to establish its value.
If we’re not basing it on a presenter/instructional model and instead a participatory or immersive one, then we are the ones responsible for making the event worthwhile. That means preparing, participating actively, bringing our A-game and knowing that we’re all in it for mutual benefit. It means leaving the competitiveness and ego aside, asking great questions, sharing great information, and working our butts off to put in as much as we expect to take away.
4. The Expectations
Emerging university and post-secondary programming in new media may meet some of our continued education needs, if that’s a commitment we’re willing to make. But if it’s a conference we want – a limited and finite investment of our time and resources – then our expectations have to line up with what can reasonably be accomplished in one to three days.
We aren’t going to learn the intricacies of the sociology of online networks in 72 hours, but we might glean some of the overarching ideas that can spark something in our own work. Walking away from a symposium griping that we didn’t get all the pieces we need to launch a complete business strategy is simply shortsighted. Outstanding conference content can serve as an amazing catalyst for our own work and ideas, but rarely is it the forum for The Answers. In fact, the best content creates more work because it inspires us to improve, refine, and create…but it’s only the beginning, and we have to do the work to apply it in our own scenarios.
We also need to have a unified goal, at least for a singular event, or at least a collective understanding of what we’re looking to achieve. Is it inspiration through big ideas, like TED or BIF? Is it in-depth discussion of a few key topics, like a condensed laboratory course, based on real-world examples with the goal of understanding more comprehensive details we can translate to our own work? Is it an open, unstructured opportunity to network and self-form discussion groups on topics of interest?
And in all cases, is the primary desired outcome inspiration, education, or professional relationship building? One needs to take the priority in order for the design of the event to support that aim, and allow the others to become ancillary benefits.
5. The Upshot
One of the biggest reasons that basic- to intermediate-level events are desirable and successful is that that’s where the meat of the learning curve sits, and instructional-style learning seems to be the thing that drives volume ticket purchases which in turn drives revenue and sponsorship. If we want something different, then we’ll have to conceive of different models to support it.
It’s not impossible. It’s not even improbable. But we’re a vocal group when it comes to articulating what we want and don’t want out of an event, and the solution to such a thing is going to take work and investment from everyone involved.
I have some ideas on this, and I realize I’ve articulated challenges here more than solutions. But I’m curious to know what you think.
Are you missing “the event” out there that you’d invest time, money, and energy to attend? Does it exist already, and where would you tell people to go? What is it you’re looking for that you aren’t getting from the other events out there? What does the event look like that challenges you?
I can’t wait to hear your thoughts.
Bingo, Amber. You’ve nailed the issue squarely on the head here.
This echoes some of what we spoke about earlier re: pushing the boundaries in conversations we have.
Without going too much into it, meeting these challenges can be tough. As a former event organizer, this was an issue I came across on a regular basis; namely, how to create a great event that challenges the way people think, developing meat-next-to-the-bone content that is accessible enough for most audiences, yet advanced enough that it can be monetized. I think, I THINK, this is an issue that most conference organizers struggle with.
In a nutshell, you’ve identified what is missing from most conferences, and would likely explain why I (and most practitioners in my circle) attend so few of them these days.
Justin, the bigger challenge in Toronto is that we get the same 20 speakers for most local events. If we want better events and speakers, then we’ve to vote with our time and money. We simple go to events (or conferences) to be seen. People like going to Mesh or Mixx Canada because they are use to going to them…. regardless of if they haven’t learned anything… because their employeer is paying in the end. Ask these same people to pay out of their own pocket and most won’t.
This is my experience as I’m deep into year two of my conference and faces the challenges Amber laid out above… a small group covering the costs because sponsors don’t see you as an opportunity. Even if you’ve tons of director/VP or above people in room. Until we’re willing to vote with our time and money in Toronto, things won’t change.
One of my favorite conferences is the 99% Conference in New York because it’s not about generating ideas but about making them happen. They have a unique list of speaker you won’t see anywhere else and they focus on people who have actually done things. When you’ve great speaker, who has done real work, you get to learn and grow as a person and for me, that makes a great conference.
If the networking value is what people get out of an event, that’s fine. If it’s to see and be seen, there’s a place for that…but then maybe the draw needs to be different rather than putting a bunch of money in speakers that no one cares about.
And of course as we discussed, the big challenge is proving the value of an event long before it gets the kind of traction that makes people WANT to be there. Building the event people want to be at is the hard part.
“Justin, the bigger challenge in Toronto is that we get the same 20 speakers for most local events.”
YES. This has been my complaint for a number of years, and one of the reason why I don’t attend events anymore.
And therein lies the disturbing and sad part. If the best we can do is bring out the same speakers over and over to hear the same talking points regurgitated, we’re doing our industry a big disservice.
Justin, I related to your comment and in complete agreement about the 99% Conference. Amber really shared some great points that can enable many of us to collaborate and create the meetings we all want to attend.
Excuse me Duane, I was actually referring to your comment.
Events are one of the hardest businesses in the world, the balance of content to business model to the value proposition for all the different audiences (sponsors and attendees and potential attendees and and and…).
The trouble with the really advanced stuff is that the market is so much smaller. Which makes for an awesomely intimate learning environment, and NOT such an awesome fit for the event models we’ve come to rely on.
Ain’t that the truth. Striking that balance is not for the faint of heart. It’s certainly a challenge I’ve come up against, and one of the reasons why I left the space. Finding a balance between those three elements was incredibly difficult, especially when I had to compete with an oversaturated event market in Toronto.
Gaining the lion share of the voice is incredibly difficult… at least, this was the case in my experience.
Another potential problem is this: There are so many facets to what we tend to think of as “advanced” social media use that I can’t imagine a coherent thread that would tie the various presos and panels together.
I think about it in terms of language barriers. Advanced Social Media is inextricably linked to the idea that everything is (or should be) social. If you think about it that way, then a person who would attend a panel on internal collaboration platform optimization (for example) would be have a completely different vocabulary than someone who is interested in social low-funnel sales tactics.
Could those two people talk to each other? And if not, would a conference format be as valuable to them as it would be to beginner- or intermediate-level SM pros?
To be honest, I wouldn’t buy a ticket to an advanced SM conference I don’t think. I’d rather hire the speaker I’d be going to see.
That’s indeed one of the problems with lots of conferences, and one of the issues I see at some of the larger ones. Being all things to all people is impossible, so you either end up with a super niche event (which is fine) or an unwieldy one with dozens of tracks, hundreds of speakers, and a dilution factor to match. Not a fan.
But I do think we can define “advanced” better in terms of social. Are we talking internal collaboration strategies and technology, or more leadership level education, or a sales/marketing focus? Then of course we’re working with smaller audiences still, which amplifies all of the issues above.
I’ve been thinking similar things, particularly since SXSW – and not because the content there isn’t for advanced professionals, but because the most successful moments I had were when I got OUTSIDE the social media content and over to other realms. I’ve told everyone the best presentation I saw there was Frank Abignale, and not because of the story he told from “Catch Me If You Can,” but because of how he made me proud to be a Dad. I had a ton of great moments going to presentations on Big Data, but that’s mostly because I’m focused on the Social Analytics end of Adavanced Social Marketing. Would others find those sessions so intriguing? Maybe a few, but not everyone.
I really like the focus TED has on the “who” rather than the “what.” Finding people who are at the bleeding edge of their field – whatever that field – will give you intriguing minds to mash together in a conference environment.
Oh, and tshirts. A truly great conference should have an epic tshirt.
I love the “who” rather than “what” thing. The person who has to sell the value of attending an event to their boss needs to be able to prove “relevance”. Can I argue that things in Abignale’s talk are relevant to me? Absolutely. Can everyone make the leap without a direct relationship to their line of work? Not necessarily.
So if we end up with a “bring in awesome people from all walks of life” we’re talking a different value proposition for everyone from sponsors to attendees which is great, but is a lot of work to establish and connect the dots for the people attending.
TED audiences are self selecting now based on the longstanding reputation of excellence of that event. How does one establish that for themselves as a new kid on the block? Big question.
I think an advanced conference isn’t what people want. They want a setting where they can learn and discuss concepts beyond the basic stats and tactics. This isn’t a large conference, it’s a smaller workshop environment. Companies that want their personnel to take advantage of such learning will need to find ways to sponsor and/or pay for it.
That said, those of us who want more from a conference need to vote with our feet and wallets. I attended 2 conferences last year that brought back the SAME speakers this year. I will not attend either, as that is a waste of my time. Being told “same speakers, different content” makes the (expensive) conference look like a club and is an insult to the scores of other people who can contribute in unique ways, and the attendees who deserve more than hearing the same old story year after year. If we don’t like the conferences we have, we need to stop supporting them and start a new thing….
I agree with that, Susan. Most of the people I know having these discussions are looking for something smaller, more intensive, and more focused.
I think there’s a big perception difference, too, between sending someone to a “conference” and sending someone to a “symposium” or even “executive training”. We expect different outcomes from those things through attending, and that’s part of what we need to get to the middle of.
Also agreed on the voting with feet/wallets thing. I hear a lot of griping about the repetitiveness of speakers (that’s another post entirely) but people continue to go. Vetting unproven speakers and presenters is a challenge in itself, but I think it’s a worthy one. That said, the attendees also need to help by articulating what they DO want, not just what they DON’T want. And event organizers need to start reading between the lines and not just taking literally the evaluation forms and surveys they get from each event.
Amber, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I have participated in several conferences this year that claimed to “delve deeper into social media” for those of us who live and breathe it every day. Honestly, they all added up to be just wasted time. Nothing I didn’t already know – and in no way do I think I know more than the average marketer/social media manager.
I agree with what mattshawblog says – the greater value comes from one-on-one or small group conversations – honest conversations – about what we’re doing, ideas to try, what’s working and what’s not. That’s hard to come by in a large conference. All of us who live this day in and day out have knowledge worth sharing – there has to be a better way to share – rather than just have the same few people talking to a huge group. The give and take is where the money is.
Dr. Susan makes a strong point as well… a smaller conference sounds more intriguing. The value proposition is stronger in that we are sharing knowledge and best practices.
You make another good point in that “advanced social media” must be defined – are we talking to the techies? The creatives? The writers? The marketers? If we had segmented round table conferences for each subgroup, we might all get more out of it.
Oh and yes, Eric has a great point: Epic t-shirts are a must!
There is one other facet that should be considered: Tech support. It does no one any good to go to a conference on social media when there isn’t enough bandwidth to support people actually “playing along”. As a trainer and presenter, I can tell you that nothing kills a social media presentation faster than finding out there is no connectivity.
This may sound like a picky detail, but it really isn’t. If the attendees at the conference can’t put what they are learning into practice, if they can’t keep up with what is being said and shown, if they feel totally disconnected from the world… The attendees will think hard about coming back.
I would love to see an advanced conference. I would love to be involved in putting one together. I think there is a huge need for it. BUT I don’t believe there is anyone out there willing to take up Amber’s challenge. And that is a loss to all of us.
My two cents – take it or leave it as desired. 🙂
I wouldn’t be so sure there isn’t anyone willing… 🙂
An excellent post as usual, Amber.
I’ve certainly been part of the vocal majority in saying that we need more advanced events and I’m happy to throw my hat in the ring to help make it happen.
Nobody ever said it would be easy and the beauty of getting together some of the best minds in the business means that everyone involved would understand that as well. (I assume?)
As with any project, we should start by defining our objectives. What does success look like?
Does an intellectual gathering of 100 at some outpost in Boulder count?
What about a smaller Podcamp like event with 30 people pushing the envelope?
Or does it need 1,000 attendees to be successful?
Does it need to be profitable? Or is a break-even event with shared ideas & learning good enough?
Do sponsors need to be involved?
Does it need to happen more than once? Annually?
I’m sure anyone with an interest in this could argue either side of any of these questions. But that’s where this should start.
I’m as guilty as anyone bitching that this should exist vs. making it exist. So starting now, I’m going to commit to (at the very least) starting to figure out what this could look like with smart people like Amber, Matt, Tamsen, Tom, CC, Jason and others. The starting point is probably as simple as a shared GoogleDoc or Trello project trying to answer some of the “objectives” questions above.
At least next time I’m at a social media conference and a speaker is focused on imploring attendees to “do social” and “join the conversation”, I’ll have somewhere to focus my frustration.
Smart people crave talking to other smart people. Question is can you get them to pay to do it or can you get Vendors X, Y and Z to pay to get them together.
Have started down this road a couple times. Would be a worthy venture. Tough economics, but not impossible.
As an event producer, and one of those (and there are quite a few of us) that took on EventCamps in the last two years, we understand that people want better meetings to attend. We understand so much more about how people learn and engage and the benefits of providing environments to do that – please keep these discussions going so that more and better conferences can continue to exist! http://eventcampvancouver.wordpress.com and http://www.eventcamptwincities.com among others (east coast, down under, europe) all have great tools and tips too. We believe!
11 years ago, a colleague and I said “why not” and created an event that we wanted. It just celebrated it’s 9th year, It was more complicated in the beginning as we tried to be “more things to more people” and to incorporate lots of cool stuff into it.
We’ve learned that unconferences – real ones that use Open Space – can be done with many fewer complications and w/o the same kinds of sponsorships usually thought of. It has become a tradition for many and we, this year, decided to continue to limit the numbers that attend.
I think we try too hard and use old models.
Oh and we did make it a hybrid — and it worked and much laughter ensued.
This is definitely a great guide! You are 100% right!