How the Responsibilities of Conferences Mirror Those of Media Platforms

responsibilities of conferences animated gif
Rereading a 2012 post by Jeff Jarvis, I was struck by the parallels between his take on news organizations’ responsibilities to their platforms and the responsibilities of conferences. Here’s the post in full:


Let’s compare Jeff’s points about media platforms’ responsibilities with my views on the responsibilities of conferences.

Users come first

“A platform without users is nothing. That is why [it] was wrong for Twitter to put a sponsor ahead of users. That is why Twitter is right to fight efforts to hand over data about users to government. That’s why newspapers built church/state walls to try to protect their integrity against accusations of sponsor influence. That is why Yahoo was wrong to hand over an email user to Chinese authorities; who in China would ever use it again? Screw your users, screw yourself.”
—Jeff Jarvis

At conferences, the “users” are primarily participants. For decades, I’ve championed responsible conference designs that prioritize participants. This approach benefits everyone—participants, sponsors, and organizers—because when attendees’ wants and needs are met, their satisfaction positively impacts all other event stakeholders.

A platform is defined by its users

“In other words: Hand over control to your users. Give them power. Design in flexibility. That’s not easy for companies to do.”
—Jeff Jarvis

Similarly, participant-driven and participation-rich conferences are defined by the participants themselves. They decide the topics and issues to focus on. Participants also learn about their peers in useful ways, enabling them to choose who to connect with from whom to learn.

Platforms collaborate

“Platforms have APIs. They reveal the keys to the kingdom so others can work with them and atop them. Are they open-source? Not necessarily. Though making its underlying platform open is what made WordPress such a success.”
—Jeff Jarvis

In the same way, the processes of participant-driven conferences are open. My books and writing share these processes freely, allowing conference organizers to adapt them to their needs. Often, I adopt new ideas and share them with the broader meeting design community, fostering collaboration and growth.

Platforms need principles

“All this can, of course, be summed up in a single, simple principle: Don’t be evil. That’s why Google has that principle: because it’s good business; because if it is evil, its users — we — can call it out quickly and loudly and desert it.”
—Jeff Jarvis

In my first book, Conferences That Work, I define the primary goal of the conferences I design:

“The primary goal of a peer conference is to create the best possible conference for each individual attendee.”
—Chapter 5, Conferences That Work

All the principles and tools I’ve developed stem from this goal. For instance, I focus on creating safe conference environments, uncovering participants wants and needs, providing structure and support for connection and learning, and maximizing opportunities for reflection and facilitating change.

In contrast, conventional conferences often lack clear guiding principles, as they’re based on outdated broadcast models that cater to whatever principles the event owners prioritize.

A good platform is transparent

Black boxes breed distrust.
—Jeff Jarvis

Similarly, peer conference designs are transparent. There are no hidden agendas, and the program is chosen by the participants. The only surprises are those created by the participants themselves.

A good platform enables portability

Knowing I can take my stuff and leave reduces the risk of staying.
—Jeff Jarvis

The peer conference process is portable to virtually any topic or community. There is no “secret sauce”. Typically, I design and facilitate one peer conference for a client to address their event issues. Afterward, clients rarely need my help again unless their requirements change.

A good platform is reliable

Oh, that.
—Jeff Jarvis

In the 1990s, I began designing and facilitating peer conferences on topics I knew little about. After a decade, I realized that the processes I had developed worked reliably across a broad range of communities. While the tools I use depend on my clients’ specific wants and needs, I’m now confident I can provide a conference that reliably satisfies all stakeholders.

The responsibilities of conferences

I’ve previously written about the parallels between the evolution and missions of journalism and events. It’s not surprising, then, that there are also strong parallels between the responsibilities of conferences and those of journalism platforms.

Image attribution: The graphic includes an image by asier_relampagoestudio on Freepik

Community versus audience in journalism and meetings

Many meetings still focus on creating audiences rather than community. Yes, there’s a big difference. And not just at meetings. Here’s how Damon Kiesow, Knight Chair for Digital Editing and Producing at the Missouri School of Journalism, compares the concepts of community versus audience from a journalistic perspective.Screenshot of Mastodon toot on community versus audience by Damon Kiesow @dkiesow@social.kiesow.net Community does not scale. Audience scales. Community is decentralized for quality. Audience is centralized for profit. Community is generative. Audience is extractive. Nov 06, 2022, 10:37

Kiesow says:

Community does not scale.
Audience scales.

Community is decentralized for quality.
Audience is centralized for profit.

Community is generative.
Audience is extractive.
Damon Kiesow, @[email protected], Mastodon toot on Nov 06, 2022, 10:37

Kiesow concisely sums up why the news business and the meeting industry concentrate on audience rather than community. When media and meeting owners focus on short-term interests—big circulations and audiences, leading to higher status and consequential larger profits at the expense of “consumers”—it’s understandable that building community plays second fiddle to chasing media visibility and large audiences.

Jeff Jarvis’s perspective

Another media professional—journalist, professor, columnist, and author Jeff Jarvis—writes about similar themes. (These two quotes are from my posts on the parallels between the evolution of journalism and events (2015) and on the parallel missions of journalism and participant-driven and participation-rich events (2018).]

“What the internet changes is our relationship with the public we serve…What is the proper relationship for journalists to the public? We tend to think it’s manufacturing a product called content you should honor and buy…That’s a legacy of mass media; treating everybody the same because we had to…So we now see the opportunity to serve people’s individual needs. So that’s what made me think that journalism, properly conceived is a service.”
Interview of Jeff Jarvis by David Weinberger

A new definition of journalism: “…convening communities into civil, informed, and productive conversation, reducing polarization and building trust through helping citizens find common ground in facts and understanding.”
—Jeff Jarvis, Facebook’s changes

Jarvis believes that journalism should serve people’s individual needs rather than manufacture content for the masses. In addition, journalism’s service should be about convening communities into civil, informed, and productive conversation.

Community versus audience

I began my first book with the research finding (and common observation) that people go to conferences to network and learn.

When I asked people why they went to conferences, the two most common answers were: (1) to network with others (80%) and (2) to learn (75%). Seventy percent of my interviewees mentioned both of these reasons. In addition, 15 percent told me that they were required to attend annual conferences to maintain their professional status.

My later books (and many posts on this site) have emphasized the superiority of active over passive learning. Active learning occurs almost exclusively in community. Creating community at conferences around participant-driven content, therefore, creates a far more effective learning and connection-rich environment. As Kiesow illustrates for journalism, emphasizing community over audience also pays rich dividends for meeting attendees.

This brings us to a key question that is rarely openly discussed: Whom are conferences for? For decades, I have been championing peer conferences, where participants own their conferences. When the attendees are the owners, meeting designs that build and support community are the obvious way to go.

But, all too often, attendees are not the conference owners. Such owners, whether they be individuals or for-profit or non-profit entities, rarely have the same objectives for the event as the attendees. Making money for themselves or their organizations, increasing their status by running large events, promoting the ideas of a few people, or influencing the direction of a cultural or industry issue are their primary goals. Supporting attendee learning and connection is a secondary consideration.

The largely silent battles being fought about the future of journalism and meeting design are strikingly similar. Both realms can learn from each other.

The parallel missions of journalism and participant-driven and participation-rich events

facebook ch-ch-ch-ch-changes…While musing about Facebook’s changes to “prioritize posts that spark conversations and meaningful interactions between people” over content from media and brands, Jeff Jarvis coined a new definition of journalism:

“…convening communities into civil, informed, and productive conversation, reducing polarization and building trust through helping citizens find common ground in facts and understanding.”
Jeff Jarvis, Facebook’s changes

That sounds a lot like the mission of the participant-driven and participation-rich events I’ve been championing for so long. Journalism can’t provide the connective power of face-to-face meetings. But its potential for helping individuals and communities build trust and find common ground is worthy and welcome.

Image attribution: Nectar Media

Parallels between the evolution of journalism and events

There are fascinating parallels in the ways that journalism and events are evolving. Listen to the first minute of this interview of “journalism maverick” Jeff Jarvis by David Weinberger.


Here’s the relevant quote:

“What the internet changes is our relationship with the public we serve…What is the proper relationship for journalists to the public? We tend to think it’s manufacturing a product called content you should honor and buy…That’s a legacy of mass media; treating everybody the same because we had to…So we now see the opportunity to serve people’s individual needs. So that’s what made me think that journalism, properly conceived is a service.”

In parallel fashion, events are moving away from broadcast formats that treat everybody the same and evolving towards designs that allow individual participants to learn what they individually want and need to learn, as well as connect with peers and peer communities that have real value for them.

Seeing your conference as a service that can provide what people want—rather than what you’ve decided they want, like the journalists of old—is key to keeping your events relevant, competitive, and successful.

[The rest of the interview is well worth the listen; David Weinberger always asks good questions! Jeff’s book Geeks Bearing Gifts: Imagining New Futures for News looks like a good read too.]