<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Unquestioned traditional conference assumption #2: Conference sessions should be used primarily for transmitting pre-planned content.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.conferencesthatwork.com/index.php/uncategorized/2009/12/unquestioned-traditional-conference-assumption-2-conference-sessions-should-be-used-primarily-for-transmitting-pre-planned-content/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.conferencesthatwork.com/index.php/uncategorized/2009/12/unquestioned-traditional-conference-assumption-2-conference-sessions-should-be-used-primarily-for-transmitting-pre-planned-content/</link>
	<description>Unconferences, participant-driven events, and facilitation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:44:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Hurt</title>
		<link>http://www.conferencesthatwork.com/index.php/uncategorized/2009/12/unquestioned-traditional-conference-assumption-2-conference-sessions-should-be-used-primarily-for-transmitting-pre-planned-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Hurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.conferencesthatwork.com/?p=356#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Adrian: 

You asked a great question: So why do we still cling to conference sessions that employ the one communication mode (one-to-many) for which a variety of alternatives can substitute? 

I think there are several reasons why:
1) Status quo
2) That&#039;s the way we&#039;ve alwasy done it.
3) It&#039;s easier.
4) We are trying to control the audience and the message.
5) We don&#039;t know how to do it differently.
6) We are usually taught and well trained regarding logistics, not effective communication strategies and human nature.

In today&#039;s world of Web 2.0, social media networking platforms, people want to engage with each other and engage with the content. We, as conference and event professionals, do a great disservice to our attendees by trying to cram them into one-to-many ballroom and breakout sessions all day. We need to learn new ways of being a connection catalyst and conduit for our attendees instead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adrian: </p>
<p>You asked a great question: So why do we still cling to conference sessions that employ the one communication mode (one-to-many) for which a variety of alternatives can substitute? </p>
<p>I think there are several reasons why:<br />
1) Status quo<br />
2) That&#8217;s the way we&#8217;ve alwasy done it.<br />
3) It&#8217;s easier.<br />
4) We are trying to control the audience and the message.<br />
5) We don&#8217;t know how to do it differently.<br />
6) We are usually taught and well trained regarding logistics, not effective communication strategies and human nature.</p>
<p>In today&#8217;s world of Web 2.0, social media networking platforms, people want to engage with each other and engage with the content. We, as conference and event professionals, do a great disservice to our attendees by trying to cram them into one-to-many ballroom and breakout sessions all day. We need to learn new ways of being a connection catalyst and conduit for our attendees instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

