I get some of my best ideas from my clients. (That’s because consulting—when I listen well—is a two-way street!) So I wasn’t surprised when, during a recent debrief, a client mentioned a simple way to improve the human spectrogram maps I’ve recommended and run for decades.
Read the rest of this entry »
I love the folks (especially my good friend, Jan-Jaap In der Maur) at Masters In Moderation, a company that has been providing meeting and facilitation services and training in the European Union since 2012. Why? Because their core beliefs about what truly matters at events are deeply aligned with mine. We recognize that events should be designed for and with participants rather than imposed upon them. We understand that engagement is not a gimmick but a fundamental right of every attendee. In short, we believe that participants have rights.
Too often, conferences default to passive experiences—attendees sit, listen, and leave without feeling seen, heard, or meaningfully involved. But Masters In Moderation and I reject this outdated model. Our work champions interactive, participant-driven approaches that transform meetings from stale information dumps into vibrant, co-created experiences.
Jan-Jaap has eloquently outlined these principles in The Participants’ Bill of Rights, a manifesto that articulates what every attendee deserves from an event. It’s a call to action for organizers, facilitators, and speakers to respect, empower, and prioritize the people in the room.
Some highlights that particularly resonate with me:
Jan-Jaap provides many more important details about participants’ rights in this Bill, which is well worth a careful read. As an event participant, how many of these rights do you find you have at events? If you’re convening events, how many of these rights do you give to your attendees?
In my decades of experience designing conferences, I’ve seen firsthand how adopting these principles elevates events. When participants feel valued and engaged, they don’t just attend an event—they co-create it. When event conveners design and facilitate events honoring these principles, the result is a richer, more dynamic, more impactful, and ultimately better experience for everyone involved.
Jan-Jaap and Masters In Moderation are doing essential work to reshape meetings for the better. If you’re serious about making your events truly participatory and improving them for everyone involved, I highly recommend exploring their approach—and taking The Participants’ Bill of Rights to heart.
Aside from my first book, I haven’t written much about the effects of attendee status — attendees’ “relative rank in a hierarchy of prestige” — at events. It’s time to revisit this important topic because you can improve your meetings by making attendee status a real-time construct.
Traditional, broadcast-style events assign attendee status in advance. A person’s status is determined before the event by whether they’re speaking and the context. For example, keynoting is of higher status than leading a breakout session. The program committee bestows status on certain attendees. Their status is publicly proclaimed on the pre-conference program, giving attendees no say in the decision.
At peer conferences (and some traditional events), attendee status is dynamic, shifting from moment to moment. Here’s how pre-determined and real-time attendee status compare:
Notice that events designed to support flexible, real-time attendee status:
With careful design, even traditional events can minimize assumptions about attendee status.
Read the rest of this entry »
The corporate-owned platforms we rely on for professional and personal communities are increasingly failing to meet our needs. Major social media networks have become saturated with advertisements, data mining, and algorithmic controls that hinder authentic engagement. This shift poses significant threats to the integrity and autonomy of our online interactions. We need alternative platforms for communities and events.
Professional, cultural, and social online communities are at risk. Xitter is in the final stages of enshittification. Facebook is inundated with advertisements and extensive data mining practices. LinkedIn groups’ algorithms bury most comments and reduce the visibility of posts with links. While private groups on major platforms remain functional, opaque and ever-changing algorithms control what users see, and the future viability of these groups is uncertain.
In addition, all corporate platforms are vulnerable to changes imposed by the owners, who can sell them at any time to new proprietors with different visions for operation or monetization, potentially further compromising the user experience.
Read the rest of this entry »
Event planners often overlook the importance of attendee conversations. Why does this happen?
For a clue, read this AT&T advertisement promoting telephones in the 1900’s!
Here’s Kevin Kelly’s analysis of what AT&T totally missed about how telephones could be used.
“Advertisements at the beginning of the last century tried to sell hesitant consumers, the newfangled telephone by stressing ways it could send messages, such as invitations, store orders, or confirmation of their safe arrival. The advertisers pitched the telephone as if it were a more convenient telegraph. None of them suggested having a conversation.“
—Kevin Kelly, “What Technology Wants” (p. 245)
Early telephone ads marketed it as a better telegraph. They focused on the value of sending messages rather than fostering conversation.
So, perhaps it’s not surprising that many conference organizers today make a similar mistake by emphasizing broadcast content over attendee interactions.
Just as advertisers missed the phone’s potential to connect people in real-time, many events fail to prioritize the natural value of attendee conversations. When organizers structure conferences as one-way content delivery sessions, they overlook the simple, high-impact power of peer-to-peer dialogue. By designing events that actively support and facilitate attendee conversations, conferences become spaces of meaningful connection, creativity, and insight that go far beyond passive listening.
Event planners must shift their mindset to seeing attendees as active participants, not just an audience. Facilitating genuine exchanges can turn an ordinary event into a transformative experience, helping people connect, share ideas, and solve problems together—things that no amount of broadcast content alone can achieve.
Liz Latham, co-founder of Club Ichi and a brilliant event marketer, recently shared an intriguing idea she plans to test to increase attendance at her free events.
Having registrants not show up has become a big problem for the meeting industry, especially for free events. Not long ago, registrants would reliably attend events they signed up for, barring unforeseen circumstances—a far cry from today’s reality. Price incentives for early registration worked, and predicting attendance rate and attrition was a science, not an art.
Those were the days!
Today, with the multiple impacts of easy online registration, FOMO rivalry, and more choices for events than ever, it’s far more likely that registrants don’t appear on the day.
For event conveners, this is at best dispiriting and at worst financially disastrous.
So anything we can do that might reduce the uncertainty and percentage of no-shows is worth considering.
Liz noticed a relatively new trend, that you may have experienced too. Some restaurants, fitness programs, hair salons, dentists, doctors, and other types of businesses have begun to charge a fee if a customer doesn’t show up for an appointment.
So Liz is considering taking credit-card information at registration time, and charging a “no-show fee” to the card if the registrant doesn’t attend.
Although this idea may be new to the meeting industry, the above links show that many appointment-based businesses routinely use this approach.
No-show fees aren’t needed for paid events, which can have cancellation policies that offer partial refunds, compensating, at least financially, for no-shows. Rather, Liz is thinking of testing no-show fees for the many free events she organizes, where attendance rates are often well below 50% of registrations.
Pros: From a meeting organizer’s perspective, the implementation of a no-show fee may deter folks registering who only expect to attend if nothing better shows up at the time of the meeting. This minimizes waste by better aligning logistical preparations with actual attendance. Implementing no-show fees can also benefit registrants who do show up, since the promoted event size (including, optionally, a list of registrants) is more likely to be accurate.
Cons: Requiring credit card information at registration may frustrate those confident they’ll attend and adds security and logistical challenges for organizers. In addition, the organizers will need to create a refund policy for no-shows with a defined and legitimate reason (such as a death in the family, travel disruptions, etc.), and implementing this could be cumbersome.
Do you think implementing no-show fees at free events is an idea worth exploring? Have you tried or experienced no-show fees at a meeting? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below!
If you are serious about improving your conferences, my meeting design workshop can be the game-changer your organization needs. Here’s what happens at a typical one-day workshop.
In a world where passive listening no longer satisfies attendees, traditional lecture-based conferences are ineffective and outdated. Today’s participants crave authentic engagement, meaningful connections, and interactive learning experiences. Are your conferences delivering the engagement, learning, and connection attendees expect? My meeting design workshops equip event professionals with the tools and techniques to create truly participatory and impactful experiences.
I’ve spent years helping organizations transform their events into connection-rich, engaging experiences through my hands-on meeting design workshops. Every workshop is customized to align with the organization’s goals and stakeholders’ wants and needs.
Here’s a peek behind the curtain!
“You don’t take a workshop. You are part of one.”
Seth Godin
This one-day workshop offers a hands-on opportunity to learn through direct experience of participatory meeting formats and techniques. Participants will engage in cycles of interactive experiences followed by debriefs, interspersed with short “theory bites” that provide critical background knowledge and concepts. These formats will be introduced in the approximate order they might appear during a typical participatory and connection-rich event.
The following program is designed for a one-day, eight-hour schedule.
Workshop Introduction, Overview, and Agreements (~20 minutes)
Establishing explicit group agreements ensures a shared understanding of expectations and participant behavior, creating a collaborative foundation for the workshop.
Learning About Who’s in the Room (~60 minutes)
One of the most powerful ways to begin an event is by helping attendees discover key information about each other. This session will explore questions such as:
Using tools like human spectrograms, we will visualize participant data, uncover shared connections, and explore questions suggested by attendees.
Break (~15 minutes)
The Three Questions: Uncovering and Satisfying Participants’ Wants and Needs (~75 minutes)
How can we create a conference that becomes what participants actually want and need? This opening format allows participants to:
Insights will inform the design of the afternoon program. The session concludes with a debrief to reflect on the experience.
Lunch and Afternoon Session Determination (~75 minutes)
During lunch, participants will use the Post It! For Programs format to propose session ideas by answering the question: “If you could pick a session to hold at this workshop, using the people and resources around you, what would it be?”
Participants can:
The outcome will be a tailored afternoon program that meets the group’s wants and needs.
The customized afternoon program will feature sessions chosen by participants, including opportunities for facilitated discussions, problem-solving, and peer learning. Breaks will be scheduled as needed. (~130 minutes)
Personal Introspective (~60 minutes)
This two-part session helps participants reflect on their learning and determine actionable changes to implement. This session may be adjusted or omitted if additional time is allocated to the afternoon program.
Break (~5 minutes)
Group Spective (~40 minutes)
A combination of retrospective and prospective feedback, this plenary session allows participants to share insights about the workshop and collectively reflect on its impact. It also fosters a sense of community and provides valuable feedback for future events.
This one-day workshop promises a rich, participatory learning experience that equips attendees with tools and techniques to create engaging and effective conferences that support the connection and learning attendees want and need.
Meeting design workshops like these empower event planners and participants to:
Every workshop is customized to align with your organization’s goals and the wants and needs of your audience.
By learning how to design participation-rich conferences, you’ll not only meet the expectations to learn and connect of today’s attendees but also elevate the impact and value of your events for all your stakeholders.
If this outline inspires you, let’s connect! I’d love to discuss how a participatory meeting design workshop can help you reimagine your events and deliver exceptional value to your stakeholders. Contact me today to explore how we can work together to create engaging, effective, and memorable conferences.
To evaluate an event, conveners focus on knowing key conference metrics. Our analytic minds seek numbers to quantify the experiences of event stakeholders. Metrics such as ticket sales, KPIs, social media mentions, booth visits, and net promoter scores create a picture of event outcomes, satisfaction levels, and areas for improvement.
But is there value in not knowing at conferences?
Mary Oliver‘s poem Snowy Night beautifully explores the tension between knowing and not knowing. She describes a snowy evening when she heard an owl:
“I couldn’t tell
which one it was –
the barred or the great-horned
ship of the air –
it was that distant.”
Instead of chasing certainty, Oliver chooses to embrace the mystery:
“But, anyway,
aren’t there moments
that are better than knowing something…”
Hearing this poem the other day reminded me of a similar tension at conferences—between the need for data and the value of embracing the intangible.
As Oliver writes,
“I suppose
if this were someone else’s story
they would have insisted on knowing
whatever is knowable – would have hurried
over the fields
to name it – the owl, I mean.”
Metrics provide a finite “map” of what happened at a conference. They transform rich human experiences into statistics—valuable, yes, but inherently incomplete. Metrics don’t capture the intangible: the awe, learning, and life-changing connections a good conference can inspire.
As Alfred Korzybski noted, “A map is not the territory.” Metrics are useful tools, but they don’t replace the fullness of the experiences they represent.
Mary Oliver’s poem celebrates the value of wonder and being present over the need to uncover all the “knowable” facts. She writes:
“I love this world,
but not for its answers.”
Let’s keep her perspective in mind when we evaluate a conference.
Otherwise, as Alan Watts warned, we risk becoming “people eating menus instead of dinners“.
In conferences, as in life, there is value in both knowing and not knowing. By balancing data with the immeasurable, we can create richer, more meaningful events.
11 years ago, I pointed out that most meetings are small meetings. It seems the meeting industry is finally catching on to this reality and its benefits. Yes, small is the new big!
From eSpeakers‘ report on IMEX America 2024:
“Small is the new big. Smaller meetings, known by industry experts as micro events, continue strong growth. Simpler internal team meetings, VIP events, and client advisory boards will be among the most common types of meetings as we go forward. These are smaller (< 100 attendees) meetings, often held offsite. That doesn’t mean they don’t need all the things that larger meetings need, including speakers.”
—Dave Reed, Joe Heaps and Roxy Synder, eSpeakers‘ report on IMEX America 2024
During the early COVID years, online meetings became the norm, while in-person gatherings dropped dramatically. Smaller online meetings revealed that broadcast-style webinars were often disengaging, while interactive online meetings helped attendees make peer connections and stay engaged.
As in-person events now return to pre-2020 levels, attendees increasingly value connecting and learning with peers, as Freeman reported in its Q1 2024 Trends Report:
“When it comes to networking, attendees are less interested in discovering new career opportunities and obtaining/providing mentoring. Instead, they view networking as the most valuable when they can exchange ideas with peers, meet new people, and speak with industry experts who may otherwise be out of reach.”
—Freeman Trends Report Q1 2024, Winter 2024 Freeman Syndicated Survey of Event Attendees.
Freeman’s research underscores that:
“Attendees want to connect with peers over shared challenges and specific topics
Just like with keynotes, content is critical when it comes to networking. Attendees want to bond with peers over shared professional challenges and topics. They aren’t as keen to speed-date over hors d’oeuvres or meet with an on-site ambassador at a phone charging station. These types of networking elements can be useful ancillaries – but they’re not sufficient on their own. Event attendees would be better served if organizers devoted more time to valued forms of networking and reduced their efforts on less-desired elements.”
—Freeman Trends Report Q1 2024, Winter 2024 Freeman Syndicated Survey of Event Attendees.
Creating the valuable networking and connection that attendees seek is far easier at small meetings—when designed right! I’ve been designing and facilitating such meetings for over three decades, and both participants and organizers love them. These events foster a loyal community with high retention rates.
Large meetings can also support effective networking, but it’s far more challenging. As attendee expectations shift, more clients are contracting me to boost connection at large events, where existing tech solutions like brain dates and speed networking often fall short.
Meanwhile, small, well-designed events continue to thrive and grow in popularity. Small truly is the new big.
Convinced that small is the way forward? Here’s how you should proceed:
Starting a new conference? Start small, with 50 – 150 participants. With the right design, you’ll create an event they’ll want to return to, year after year. You can then grow the event over time.
Struggling with a small conference? Your event design might need an update—I can help!
Running a large conference but receiving feedback about ineffective networking and connection? You’re not alone. I’m hearing from an increasing number of clients with this problem. Re-designing an existing event is challenging but achievable. The key lies in focusing on identifying, supporting, and connecting existing sectors and groups within the event. A small but impactful design shift early on can make a big difference. Contact me if you’d like to explore how this approach could transform your event.
I’ve not always agreed with Freeman’s Reports, but, if you’re in the meeting industry, Freeman’s Trends Report Q4 2024 is a must-read.
“We’ve calibrated our research and confirmed our hypothesis: many organizers are operating on outdated definitions of attendee and exhibitor value. The good news? We’re here to help you speak the same language as your stakeholders and overcome the obstacles that prevent progress.
This report is your playbook for embracing shifts, equipping you with the insights and strategies to make change now.”
Fall 2024 Freeman Syndicated Survey of Event Organizers. Copyright Freeman 2024
Read this report to discover if you’re doing what’s needed to improve your events for your attendees.
The biggest takeaway? Only a quarter of event organizers are constantly evolving their event designs. Freeman calls them the Innovators and describes how their approach differs from their Conventionalist peers.
“Although most organizers report that they consider market trends and audience needs when developing their most important events, only 27% of organizers report that dramatic audience-centric changes occur from one event to the next.”
Freeman’s Innovators create events that align closely with the true needs of attendees, while Conventionalists often stick to outdated models. The result? Innovator-led events are far more likely to delight attendees—and ultimately, all stakeholders.
As Freeman puts it:
“It makes sense that organizers are more focused on attendee-related outcomes than exhibitor/sponsor outcomes. After all, if your attendees don’t get value from your event, then your event partners won’t get value either.”
Freeman’s conclusions come from comparing the event attendee intent and behavior data from their Q1 2024 Trends Report with this report’s survey data of event organizers.
Here are three examples of how the Innovators set themselves apart:
There’s a significant gap between what organizers and attendees think are important factors affecting learning at events:
Innovators are better equipped to meet these important attendee learning modalities than their Conventionalist counterparts.
Next, compare the differences in perception of top experiential factors.
Attendees highly value hands-on interactions and immersive experiences (64%) compared to 46% of organizers. This mismatch suggests that many organizers are missing opportunities to deliver what attendees find most engaging.
Finally, let’s review where organizers allocate resources, compared to attendees’ event priorities.
Both organizers and attendees rank exhibits as the top priority. But attendees place networking second, while organizers rank it fifth—behind keynotes/general sessions, education sessions, and special events. This misalignment can mean missed opportunities for valuable attendee connections.
Event organizers, are you listening?
Sadly, three-quarters of you are not.
I don’t want to be too hard on the majority (56%) of event organizers who want to evolve their meeting designs but continue to hold static events. According to Freeman, nearly half of event organizers don’t feel empowered to make changes:
So, we must ask: Why do most event programs remain the same when market trends and attendees continue to change?”
“Nearly half of event organizers do not feel empowered to evolve their event.
We’ve uncovered a troubling new gap. Although most event organizers want to evolve their program, only some feel empowered to do so.
The data suggests that many event organizers aren’t just faced with attendee and exhibitor misalignments, but misalignments with leadership that limit or prevent event evolution.”
This is a polite way of saying that leadership is often afraid of creating connection at events because they see it as losing control. Even though such control is a myth.
Freeman found that a majority of Innovators felt “extremely empowered” to evolve their event programs and reported greater satisfaction with their event evolution. Interestingly, 49% of Innovators have a single person or a small team dedicated to networking-related activities.
I’ve only reported some of the conclusions in the report, which is full of useful little tidbits, like this one:
“Innovators plan to focus more on elevating the attendee experience (40%) than increasing the number of attendees (38%). Perhaps because Innovators understand that by enhancing the experience, they’ll attract high-quality attendees.”
So read the whole thing!
1. Generational models: Freeman uses the popular Generation XYZ framework to explain changes in attendee needs. I’ve written about the limitations of the slotting of people into Boomer/Gen X/Millennial/Gen Z categories as it mistakes new behavior for shifts in human nature rather than a change in opportunity. Much of the “difference” between “generations” is caused by a change in that generation’s environment or circumstances. In my experience, attendees have always responded favorably to events with the priorities that Freeman suggests, event designs I’ve been championing for decades. It’s just that these days they are more in tune with what younger generations find normal.
2. The language of connection: The words we use for meetings matter. Reports like Freeman’s often use the term “networking,” but what attendees truly seek is meaningful connections. Let’s talk about creating and supporting connection, rather than just “networking”.
Freeman’s Trends Report Q4 2024 is a must-read. Ten years ago, Innovators were rare, but today they make up a quarter of event organizers. This is a promising trend, but there’s still a long way to go. I hope our industry embraces these insights and continues evolving in a positive direction.