How can we minimize vendor pitches during conference sessions?
Traci Browne of Trade Show Institute has been reading my book Conferences That Work and recently wrote:
One of my biggest questions is around vendor pitching at peer-to-peer sessions and not letting them dominate. You know who these people are, they are everywhere and it’s hard to avoid them.
If you’ve read my book you’ll know that unwanted vendor pitches are not a problem at Conferences That Work. Why? Because attendees know that they determine what happens at peer sessions. Not conference organizers, and certainly not vendors.
The conference staff gives vendor representatives who wish to attend peer sessions a set of clear expectations. They ask representatives to sit quietly and observe, and only provide contributions if they ask for and receive an OK from the people present. They warn vendors that it’s possible the session attendees may not want them to be present, though this is rarely a problem in my experience.
At some sessions, attendees may share sensitive personal experiences or want frank discussion of commercial products and services. At these, the session facilitator asks at the start for attendees’ permission to allow vendor representatives to sit in. If someone objects, vendors are not allowed to attend.
When I ran traditional conferences with vendor exhibits, unwanted vendor pitches were a sometimes distasteful and seemingly unavoidable component of the conference experience. Since moving to the peer conference format I have not had one problem allowing vendor representatives to attend conference sessions.
That’s how I minimize vendor pitches during conference sessions.
Does asking attendees in advance for conference program suggestions work?
Attendees repeatedly report in conference evaluations that the predetermined program was a poor fit for what they would have liked to have happened. In my experience, the average participant gives lukewarm ratings to over half of the sessions available to them at a conventional conference. In other words, predetermined programs don’t work.
How can we do better?
One obvious approach is to poll attendees before the conference. Nearly all conscientious event planners do this.
The problem is that asking your attendees for their input on the upcoming conference program simply doesn’t work very well. Here’s why:
Attendees are busy people
Attendees, like all of us, are busy people. How many will fill out a long (or even a short) questionnaire about what they want at an event that’s happening six months from now? Not many. Even if you force them to answer as part of the registration process, how much time are they going to spend to really think about the three most important topics they’d like you to offer? Sure, a minority of attendees will be conscientious and may give you some good ideas. But do you know if they represent an unbiased sample of your attendees? Do you want to base your conference program on their responses?
Six months is an eternity
Most food goes stale. (OK, Twinkies don’t, but how many of us enjoy eating Twinkies?) Similarly, most conference topics have expiration dates. The topic that’s hot now may be cold by the time your conference rolls around. So even if lots of your attendees tell you they’re really into sushi now, it may be Cambodian Cha knyey when it’s time to actually sit down for the conference meal.
What do you want to talk about now?
There’s a world of difference between a response to the question “What do you want?” when it’s asked about the distant future and when it’s asked about what you want in the next five minutes. At Conferences That Work, when the roundtable facilitator announces that, in five minutes, people will start to answer three questions out loud to everyone present, minds become wonderfully concentrated. That’s when you find out what attendees really want. Not before.
Conclusion
I’m not saying we should give up asking in advance what attendees want in a conference program. Sometimes you’ll get good suggestions for conference presenters or session topics that you can turn into valuable sessions at the event. But you’ll rarely be able to create the bulk of a conference program that fits as well as one that’s created at the event.
So, don’t bother asking attendees for conference program suggestions in advance. Remember, predetermined programs don’t work. Instead, relax. Use event crowdsourcing to ask your attendees what they want. Your attendees will build the best program possible themselves—and they’ll thank you for the opportunity!
I used to staff large group seminars that lasted three or four days and involved intensive group interaction, sharing personal experiences, and individual and group feedback. Quoting from an invitation:
“The seminar involves risk-taking, emotional investment and expanding your comfort zone. It is all part of a process that has been developed and fine-tuned over a number of years. We know it works; we also know the more you contribute, the more you will gain from it. We hope that you recognize mixed emotions and feelings are a part of the process which, when acknowledged and examined, yield tremendous rewards including greater focus and clarity about your goals, new choices for your personal and professional life, and closer more intimate relationships.”
I staffed over thirty of these events. Typically there were around sixty participants, and I led a group of six or seven people. I hadn’t met the people in my staff group before and rarely ever met them again.
By the end of our time together, the people in my group knew more about the other members than most people know about their closest friends. And, more important, everyone received valuable information about themselves from their group members and from their responses to what happened during the event. This all took place in a safe and supportive environment. Most people found their experience profoundly moving, sometimes life-changing.
The potential of group process
You might be interested in, skeptical, or dismissive of what I’ve just described. That’s not the point. What’s important is my repeated observation that most of us have the potential to quickly develop intimate, powerful connections with others at group events. What must we do for this to occur? At a minimum we must offer 1) a safe environment, and 2) permission and support to step a little outside what we’ve been taught (albeit for good reasons) about what can happen when we meet people.
No, Conferences That Work aren’t large group seminars that launch participants on a voyage of self-discovery. They are gentle, joyful events where people learn, share, and connect safely around a topic of common interest. But my knowledge, gained from those seminars, of what’s possible when people get together drives everything I do.
(Part two of my reflections on EventCamp 2010, held February 6th in New York City. Part One here.)
Image kindly provided by Sofia Negron Photography
As at every good conference, it was the people who made EventCamp 2010 most memorable. I can confirm that #eventprofs are just as cool face-to-face as online! To be warmly accepted in New York City by members of a virtual community that I joined just ten weeks ago, and to enjoy curiosity and interest about my book and Conferences That Work from members of the professional events industry for many years was a great experience for me.
I made and strengthened many relationships at EC10, and I learned some interesting things. Hopefully some will be new to you as well. Here’s a summary:
Paul Salinger: 1) Oracle runs thousands of events every year. Oracle’s European face-to-face meeting attendance was falling. Making them hybrid events (f2f events with a simultaneous remote audience) has turned this around. 2) But Paul is not a fan of the current generation of commercial virtual event platforms.
Twitter is being used successfully to drive retail sales to physical venues (e.g. “first 100 people to whisper “puppy” at our New York store get a free cupcake”).
In a similar vein, Jeff Hurt kindly explained to me how FourSquare is being used to cross-market between businesses that are close to each other (“check in at this hotel and get a free drink at the neighborhood bar tonight”).
How to price attendance at virtual events compared to the price for traditional attendees? No agreement at EC10 – one person had successfully charged the same (~200 people, half present half remote) which surprised most people. Someone suggested trying a contribution model.
Robert Swanwick recommended posting video clips of conference presenters online before the event starts, giving participants an advance look so they can better choose the sessions they attend.
Tools for event streaming: Robert mentioned Procaster for stream editing and his product twebevent [Jan 2013 update: alas, twebevent is no more] which is available in a free version.
Jeff Hurt gave everyone a Post-It note and asked us to “write what you want to learn in this session”. He had the notes read out, while simultaneously grouping them into similar themes. Then Jeff facilitated a session discussion and exploration of these themes, while skillfully weaving in his own comments and thoughts. This was a simple and effective technique for letting groups effectively explore the issues they want to explore.
Have an “MC of remote audience” who monitors the back-channel (usually a hashtagged Twitter feed) for audience questions and comments and communicates them to the local audience.
Find out who your brand champions are (specific customers who are enthusiastic evangelists for your products/services), stay in close touch with them, and be real nice to them!
Google “social media releases” to find out about how to write them – they’re not the same as traditional press releases. You can build social media releases on pitchengine or prweb.
What’s the most common technical problem for hybrid events? Not enough Internet bandwidth! Mary Ann Pierce told us that for several thousand people, she supplied dedicated 100MB service!
Here’s a great idea of Jeff Hurt’s to help to keep a balance between the needs of face-to-face and remote audiences during a session. Periodically, have the f2f audience hold five-minute discussions in small groups, while the speaker interacts directly with the remote audience!
Remember that the typical attention span of an attendee at a session is about ten minutes. Consider switching your mode of interaction frequently to hold attendee interest.
Don’t just stream events. Record the stream and make it available on demand. A lot more people will watch it that way.
That’s my list. If you were at EC10, feel free to add yours!
(This is the first of two posts about EventCamp 2010. This one contains my first impressions; tomorrow I’ll write about what I learned there.)
EC10 – you had to be there…
Yesterday I attended EventCamp 2010 (#ec10) in New York City. It was a remarkable one-day conference organized by a colorful group of folks who coalesced around the #eventprofs hashtag on Twitter. In one year, their online connection generated enough energy to fuel the hard work needed to put together and run a successful face-to-face and simultaneous online conference for progressive event professionals from all over the U.S. A big shoutout to Christina Coster, Jessica Levin, Mike McCurry, Mike McAllen, their volunteers, and all the other folks involved for all their hard work putting EventCamp 2010 together.
About EC10
EC10 was a hybrid conference. While I’ve used the term hybrid to refer to conferences that are a mixture of peer conference and traditional conference, the #eventprofs crew use it to describe a conference that’s both face-to-face and online. Some 70 of us came to NYC, with an unknown (to me currently) number virtually. Since even I can’t be in two places at once, I couldn’t experience what it was like for the remote audience. But I’m very interested in reports from members of the #eventprofs community who attended online.
One really cool thing that the EC10 organizers did was to stream live interviews with each session’s leaders right after the session ended. This gave the remote audience exclusive extra content, with even the opportunity to ask questions directly afterward. (Remote questions were also answered during the sessions). It was like TV award ceremonies, where the cameras go backstage and the TV viewers get content that the physical audience doesn’t. The interviewer was the remarkable Emelie Barta, who I’d recommend to anyone needing smart media-savvy company promotion. While I’m handing out kudos, all of us owe a big vote of thanks to Core Staging who donated their time and equipment to make it happen for both the live and virtual conference.
I meet the #eventprofs behind the avatars
When I walked through the door of the charming Roger Smith Hotel, I had never met a single member of #eventprofs face-to-face. That changed in the next few hours. I fell into conversation with #eventprofs luminaries at Lily’s Bar, and later 22 of us took cabs for a meal at Piolas. Those little Twitter avatars I’d seen over the last few months were replaced by real live people. What fascinated me was how the spirit that I had felt in our online conversations came right through face-to-face. And no longer was our conversation restricted to 140-character tweets and blog posts.
I was really surprised by the professional diversity of the folks I met at EC10. Convention center managers, trade show presenters, hotel sales managers, social media consultants, trade booth designers, association staff, marketing professionals of every stripe, show service vendors, eco-event organizers, event management gurus, and the list goes on. I didn’t meet anyone who was a direct competitor of anyone else. Everyone had their own niche, servicing a unique set of needs. Perhaps this is a reflection of the fact that the events industry is HUGE ($100B per year), but it was cool to learn more about the field from every person I spoke to.
The EC10 program
We had a full day of sessions on Saturday from 8:30 a.m. – 5 p.m. The program had several sets of simultaneous sessions; I chose sessions on creating a hybrid event, integrating social media on-site, creating an online conference community, and balancing the needs of face-to-face and remote audiences. The latter was my favorite, run by the skillful Jeff Hurt. Jeff showed himself to be a master of finding out the group’s needs and then leading a focused discussion that uncovered many useful insights. (And he even ended on time!) I also enjoyed Samuel J. Smith‘s fishbowl (a favorite group technique of mine) on the on-site integration of social media. But every session contained nuggets of useful ideas and information.
A few negatives
For me, there were only a few minor negatives to the event.
I was disappointed that the conference program ended up having no free time slots for alternative sessions proposed by several conference attendees. I offered a couple of sessions related to Conferences That Work, but with worthy pre-announced sessions filling all the time we had, I didn’t get a chance to lead a session. (OTOH, there was widespread interest in my book, and I sold many copies, making my suitcase a lot lighter on the return journey to Vermont.)
The hotel’s wifi connection often buckled under the strain of live streaming and the highly connected attendees, which led to somewhat unpredictable Internet connectivity.
The clever unannounced lunchtime entertainment was entertaining, but took away time I would have preferred to spend on our energetic mid-day conversations.
Deirdre Breakenridge’s closing general session was, for me, the weakest. While a knowledgeable and likable speaker, she didn’t ask the audience what we wanted to hear about and gave a prepared talk that didn’t really grab my interest. It was noticeable that, unlike other sessions, the #ec10 Twitter stream reflected very little of what she said.
After a high-energy but very enjoyable day, many of us retired to Lily’s once more. From there, we walked a block to Connolly’s where I greatly enjoyed dinner with Karen Levine, Jenise Fryatt (the famous @lyksumlikrish – my favorite Twitter name), and Traci Browne. And then I staggered off to bed…
William Gibson & Bruce Sterling’s The Difference Engine introduces us to an alternative world where we never discovered electronics, where computers are made of polished brass and powered by steam.
Sometimes I dream I’m living in an alternative conference universe. One where we’ve never discovered that people who travel thousands of miles to be in the same room with one another don’t want to spend most of their time listening to people at the front of that room. These same people try to talk to each other but are drowned out by loud music. And they never get to meet the five people in the room who could change their lives. It’s the conference Difference Engine!
Think of the last time you were with a group of people and made a stretch to learn something. Perhaps you admitted you didn’t understand something someone said, wondering as you did whether it was obvious to the others present. Or you challenged a viewpoint held by a majority of the people present. Or you proposed a tentative solution to a problem, laying yourself open to potentially making a mistake in front of others. These are all examples of what I call risky learning.
Whatever happened, was the learning opportunity greater compared to safe learning—the passive absorption of presented information?
Traditional conferences discourage risky learning. Who but a supremely confident person (or that rare iconoclast) stands up at the end of a presentation to several hundred people and says they don’t understand or disagree with something someone said? Who will ask a bold question, share a problem, or state a controversial point of view? Many don’t, fearing it may affect their professional status, job prospects, or current employment with others in the audience. People who brave these concerns are more likely to be exhibiting risky behavior than practicing risky learning.
Yet it is possible to provide a safe and supportive environment for risky learning. Here’s how we do it at Conferences That Work.
Confidentiality
First, and perhaps most important, is the commitment attendees make at the very beginning of the conference to keep confidential what is shared. This simple communal promise generates a level of group intimacy and revelation seldom experienced at a conventional conference. As a result, participants are comfortable speaking what’s on their minds, unencumbered by worries that their sharing may be made public outside the event.
Size
Second, because Conferences That Work are small, there is an increased chance that attendees will be the sole representatives of their organizations and will feel comfortable fruitfully sharing sensitive personal information with their peers, knowing that what they say won’t filter back to coworkers. Even when others are present from the same institution, the intimacy of our conferences helps to develop amity and increased understanding between them.
No presuppositions
Third, our conference process makes no presuppositions about who will act in traditional teacher or student roles during the event. This creates fluid roles and learning that are driven by group and individual desires and abilities to satisfy real attendee needs and wishes. There’s an environment where it’s expected that anyone may be a teacher or learner from moment to moment. Participants overcome inhibitions about asking naive questions or sharing controversial opinions.
Modeling
Finally, Conferences That Work facilitators model peer conference behavior. When they don’t know the answer to a question, they say, “I don’t know.” If they need help, they ask for it. When they make mistakes, they are accountable rather than defensive. Consistently modeling appropriate conduct fosters a conference environment conducive to engaged, risky learning.
Ultimately, each attendee decides whether to stretch. But Conferences That Work supplies optimum conditions for risky learning. This makes it much easier for participants to take risks and learn effectively.
While reading Margaret Wheatley’s lovely book turning to one another I ran across the six principles she has “learned to emphasize” before beginning a conversation:
we acknowledge one another as equals
we try to stay curious about each other
we recognize that we need each other’s help to become better listeners
we slow down so we have time to think and reflect
we remember that conversation is the natural way humans think together
we expect it to be messy at times
Six principles of conversation. I’m especially taken by her third principle. We can’t listen by ourselves.
