Give meeting-goers many options!

give meeting-goers many options: an illustration displaying fifteen different control iconsToday’s meetings need to give meeting-goers many options, not just a few. But this doesn’t mean filling the conference program with every conceivable session topic. To be enjoyable and productive, meetings need white space: free time for attendees to do what they want and need to do.

When we preschedule an entire conference program, each attendee’s only remaining choice becomes which sessions to attend. It’s like how the news industry uses polls, as described by Jeff Jarvis:

“Polls are the news industry’s tool to dump us all into binary buckets: red or blue; black or white; 99% or 1%; urban or rural; pro or anti this or that; religious (read: evangelical extremist) or not; Trumpist or not; for or against impeachment. Polls erase nuance. They take away choices from voters before they get to the real polls, the voting booth. They silence voices.”
Jeff Jarvis, Polls subvert democracy

Predetermined meeting programs silence attendees’ voices in the same way.

So how do we give meeting-goers many options without taxing their stamina and powers of concentration?

Use event crowdsourcing to give attendees the right options!

Event crowdsourcing allows participants to create the sessions that they want and need. Opening techniques such as The Three Questions; Reminders, Sparks, Questions, Puzzles; Peer Session Selection and Sign-up; and Post it! For Programs make it possible to create conference programs at the event that truly reflect participant desires. Every session created this way is virtually guaranteed to be of interest to attendees because they chose them earlier in the event!

Event crowdsourcing thus avoids the two biggest problems endemic to traditional meetings: not including the sessions that attendees actually want and need, and overwhelming attendees with too many choices crammed into an exhausting schedule.

I have been using event crowdsourcing at conferences for decades. The programs that it constructs are invariably well-received and highly rated. Participants love being actively involved in choosing what they want to learn and discuss, and they typically uncover great session topics that were not on anyone’s radar before the event.

So if you want to give meeting-goers many appealing choices, use event crowdsourcing at your meetings. More information on my comprehensive event crowdsourcing manual is available here.

Avoid this common mistake when planning meeting programs

Process for selecting sessions: photograph of a crowd of people waving papers in the air
Although I have good reasons to champion meeting designs where the participants get to choose what they want and need to discuss and learn rather than a program committee, there is invariably a place for some predetermined presentations at conferences. Unfortunately, most program committees use a flawed process for selecting sessions.

They rely extensively on calls for proposals (CFP).

When you issue a CFP, you will get submissions for all kinds of reasons. For example:

  • Suppliers want to pitch (subtly or blatantly) their products or services.
  • Speakers have an existing presentation they hope to shoehorn into your program.
  • Sexy topics of the month attract pitches like moths to a flame.

Do not assume that the submissions you receive accurately reflect what your meeting actually needs. For an example of this kind of bias, here’s an excerpt from a recent Successful Meetings (July 2017 print edition) article:

“Through the call-for-papers process, you may notice certain trends in the content choices that your potential speakers are making. If potential speakers are flocking to apply for a specific subject matter, this may indicate a demand from your event to address that topic and include more speakers on it.”
How to Get Compelling Content For Your Conference by Allie Magyar, Successful Meetings, July 2017 print edition

The “many proposals” mistake when selecting sessions

Although Allie’s article includes many good suggestions, I take issue with this one. Receiving many proposals for a specific topic only indicates that there are many people offering to speak about it. It does not follow that the topic is pertinent or should be emphasized in your conference program.

If you only choose program sessions from those offered in response to a CFP, you are letting the CFP tail wag the meeting program dog.

Instead, do the following:

  • Confer with stakeholders and participants to determine realistic goals and desired outcomes for your event.
  • Use these goals and outcomes to determine topics you want and need to be covered.
  • Contact known-quality appropriate presenters who may be able to a) meet these objectives and b) suggest additional relevant topics for inclusion in your program.
  • Use the resulting information to work both inside and outside your CFP responses to select good presenters who can deliver on topics that your participants may actually want and need.

Don’t use a flawed process selecting sessions! Your meeting program will be all the better for it.

Do conference attendees know what they want?

Do attendees know what they wantHow you program conferences depends (or ought to) on your answer to the question: Do conference attendees know what they want?

No one ever asks this question, of course. But if they did, the conventional answer, given while under the influence of truth serum, would have to be: “No they don’t. That’s why we have a program committee that puts together a set of sessions that’s tailored to our audience.”

The problem with this answer is that, after twenty years of running participant-driven conferences where I’ve had the luxury of comparing what participants chose to do with what the organizers predicted they wanted, I know the following to be true:

The best conference program committees predict only half the program sessions that attendees really want.

Think about that for a moment. Half or more of the sessions in your last conference were not what your attendees really wanted.

What a waste.

So don’t listen to those who say that a committee of subject matter experts will do a good job putting together a conference program. It won’t.

Do conference attendees know what they want? Photograph of a puzzled woman holding a camera lens to her ear.Now it’s not that I think that the conventional answer to the question that I started with is wrong. Conference attendees don’t know what they want any better than the program committee if you ask them before the event. (Yes, I’ve checked that statement by comparing pre-conference attendee suggestions for sessions with what participants actually chose. Same dismal prediction success.)

The reality is that if you want to find out what conference attendees really want to discuss and learn about at a conference, you need to do the following:

Uncover topics for discussion at the event

Potter Steward, Supreme Court Associate Justice of the United States famously wrote that pornography was hard to define, but that “I know it when I see it”. In the same way, individual attendees (or program committee members) find it hard to define in advance the session topics they’d like. But when they use a group-generated comprehensive list, they find it much easier to pick what they want to have happen.  As I’ve written about before, this process works poorly in advance. By having group members request topics while the whole group is listening, everyone hears good, unexpected ideas for topics that may subsequently initiate a novel and popular session. This is one of the important functions of the Three Questions session that Conferences That Work uses.

Provide a convergent/divergent process for choosing the topics that will be scheduled

To get a conference program that optimally reflects the true needs and desires of the people present you need to first publicly stimulate divergent thinking. The whole group generates a comprehensive set of plausible ideas. You then follow up with convergent process that narrows topics down to a realistic set of popular group choices. This is similar to classic brainstorming and decision-making process. It surprises me how rarely such a well-established protocol has been used for the creation of conference programs. The peer session signup used in Conferences That Work provides this two-stage process.

Your choice

So, do conference attendees know what they want? Yes, they do—when the above criteria are satisfied. And they do so better than any well-intentioned committee attempting to create a good program before the event.

So you have a choice.

Keep building your conference program the same old way, knowing that half or more of your sessions are not what attendees would choose.

Or, use process that guarantees success, because your attendees get the program they want by creating it themselves.

Your choice.

Photos by Flickr users nycarthur, wererabbit