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!
“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
Why is this happening?
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.
“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 easy 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.
Next steps
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.
A [MARKETING PERSON] has invited me to share my expertise at a meeting industry event. Well, there’s nothing unusual about that; it happens frequently. BUT THIS TIME I GET TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE!
Pay me? No, you pay us!
I’m regularly asked to speak, present, or run a workshop at meeting industry events. While I love to do this, the requests are often silent about something important.
Namely, any mention of compensation for my appearance.
Here’s what I wrote about this in 2021:
“Tip: If you…want to get someone like me to speak at your meeting, try including what you will offer for fee and expense reimbursement in your initial request. Initial offers of payment are so rare, your inquiry will immediately rise to the top of my pile.” —Adrian Segar, January 2021, Why people continue to speak for free at meeting industry conferences
Someone I’ll call [MARKETING PERSON] clearly read this and decided to go the extra mile. A [LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY] was indeed featured in their email, after explaining why they were anxious for me to be there.
‘Attendees to [MEETING INDUSTRY EVENT] genuinely need the help and expertise of companies and advisors just like yourself. That’s why we have introduced a new format, “Meet the Experts” for our 2023 show.’
In a genuinely innovative twist, however, I would get to pay the [MEETING INDUSTRY EVENT] so people could meet me, the expert, to “share your insights and advice with attendees”.
Here’s the emailed pitch, anonymized to protect the guilty.
The Letter
9/29/23
Subject: Are you a [TOPIC] Expert?
Hi Adrian Segar,
How are you doing?
I wanted to let you know about Meet the Experts, a new initiative for [MEETING INDUSTRY EVENT] in [DATES] at [VENUE, LOCATION] which I think you will find interesting as a way for you to participate in the show and generate valuable leads.
Attendees to [MEETING INDUSTRY EVENT] genuinely need the help and expertise of companies and advisors just like yourself.
That’s why we have introduced a new format, “Meet the Experts” for our 2023 show.
[MEETING INDUSTRY EVENT] will bring together the brightest minds in the events industry, and this [DESCRIPTION OF OPPORTUNITY] will feature experts such as yourself creating the ideal platform for you to showcase your knowledge and connect with a highly engaged audience.
This is more than just a networking experience; it’s a golden opportunity for you to share your insights and advice with attendees seeking guidance in their businesses.
By joining “Meet the Experts,” you’ll gain access to registered attendees who are actively seeking solutions to their business challenges and [TOPIC].
As an expert, you will have a dedicated meeting space within the [VENUE LOCATION] complete with a table and chairs, where you can have focused meetings with individuals who need your services.
Attendees will apply for a meeting with you in the leadup to the event and once you have pre-qualified them will be able to schedule a meeting on [DATES].
After the event, attendees will have the opportunity to provide feedback and rate their meetings with you. This feedback will help you focus on hot leads post-show.
Each company participating in the program benefits from the following:
Featured in a “meet the experts” email to registered attendees to drive meeting requests
A dedicated meeting space within the [VENUE LOCATION]
Branding, logo and messaging incorporated into the [VENUE LOCATION]
A table and chairs to conduct meetings
A link for attendees to apply for a meeting with you (ability to accept or decline)
Dedicated Meet The Experts profile on the event website, event platform and event app
Included in our pre-event marketing campaign for Meet The Experts
A lead scan licence for scanning attendee badges
Price [A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY].
The Meet the Experts Program is limited to just 6 experts, Do let me know if you would like me to secure one of those spaces for you.
Kind regards
[MARKETING PERSON]
The Offer of a Lifetime
Truly this is the offer of a lifetime! Though, surprisingly, not everyone agrees. A colleague of mine who received the same pitch sent it to me with the comment:
“All I can say is Ewww”
I’m not sure whether to admire or be disgusted by [MARKETING PERSON]’s chutzpah.
Regardless, apart from sharing it here, I am ignoring their remarkable offer.
Though I don’t teach college anymore, I’m interested in educational class design because a class is a meeting. And much of what we can do to design great meetings is applicable to college classes too.
Sadly, I was disappointed. Not so much by the information presented but more by the way it was done. Talking about incorporating active learning, interaction, and participation into college classes is great. But talking does little to change the behavior of those listening. The speakers didn’t model what they were preaching during their talk!
The webinar platform and opening
The two-hour webinar was hosted on Zoom. It used a hybrid format with about 100 people present in person and eight hundred online. Chat was disabled, so online attendees could only interact via Zoom’s Q&A function. The presenters used Mentimeter for (two, I think) online polls.
Two hours of 900 people’s time adds up to 1,800 person-hours allotted to this webinar. Here’s a summary of my observations, plus suggestions on how the organizers could have improved the experience.
The webinar started 6 minutes late
Starting late is disrespectful, and provides a poor model for what the “new college classroom” should be like. 90 attendee hours wasted! The meeting stakeholders could have done two small things to make it far more likely that the webinar started on time:
1. Include two times in the meeting invitation. The time when the meeting will open, and the time when the meeting will start.
For example: “We’ll open the room and the Zoom meeting at 14:45 EDT, and start promptly at 15:00 EDT.”
2. To improve the meeting start experience further, let people know what (if anything) will be happening between the open and start time of the meeting.
For example: “Arrive a little early, and chat with our presenters before the meeting starts!”
See this article for more information about starting meetings on time.
Aaagh: The webinar began with 25 minutes of broadcast information!
First up was the Executive Director of the Futures Initiative who thanked the sponsors and introduced the Chancellor and Provost of CUNY. She didn’t take too long, but the Chancellor and Provost were a different story. In total, attendees sat through twenty-five minutes of thank-yous, congratulations, and enthusiasm about the book and presenters that added nothing of value to the webinar. During this segment, I tweeted:
Watching the #newcollegeclassroom webinar. Over twenty minutes have been spent on this two-hour session, and we’re still on the introductions! With 800 attendees, that’s 300 person-hours wasted so far. I hope this is not representative of A New College Classroom.
“a frame you hear in lots of non-academic circles something like nothing changes in academia.
People outside of the academic world think we are stuck in old methodologies”
The irony of the current #newcollegeclassroom webinar speaker describing the importance of participation in the classroom where no participation has occurred for 30 minutes.
Introductions and thanks can be shared effectively in a few sentences. If attendees want to know more, they can easily find it on the web. The entire introduction could have easily been covered in five minutes at the most.
At this point, a quarter of the allocated webinar time had passed and the presenters hadn’t even appeared yet! 450 attendee hours wasted.
Finally, the presenters appeared!
#newcollegeclassroom presenters from @FuturesED tweet https://twitter.com/FuturesED/status/1567609717299597312?
Finally, the presenters of the #newcollegeclassroom webinar appear after 25% of the webinar is over. It sounds like there will be some interactive process now. Thank goodness for that.
The book authors and webinar presenters Christina Katopodis and Cathy N. Davidson began well with the classic participative active learning exercise (think-)pair-share. This was fine for the in-person audience, but not made available to the online audience. You can easily run pair (or preferably trio) share in small Zoom meetings using (up to 50) breakouts, but Zoom webinars don’t include this functionality. Still, even an online poll provides some activity for remote audiences.
I always found it difficult to get participants’ attention when closing a pair share, and this happened during the webinar too. As the presenters noted, that’s a good thing! For the in-person audience, this was the moment when they were most engaged during the entire session.
But inadequate regular interactive processes followed
Need more interaction by this point of the #newcollegeclassroom webinar. Brains are turning off. 70 minutes have passed and we’ve had ONE interactive exercise. Rule of thumb is every ten minutes or less if you want to maintain active learning.
The subsequent webinar content was good, but there was only one more interactive exercise (a poll about what people disliked about teaching). Christina and Cathy switched often—a good thing to do—and told a few stories during the remainder of the webinar. But the rest of the webinar used a lecture format.
And the seminar ended really early for the online audience!
To my surprise, the “presentation” portion of the putative two-hour session ended twenty minutes early, after the presenters had answered some audience questions. The in-person audience could get up and chat with each other, get copies of their books signed, etc. The online audience (the vast majority of those attending) had nothing to do!
The online audience, who had scheduled two hours out of their day to attend the seminar, only received seventy minutes of (potentially) useful content!
This was really unfortunate. I can think of a number of ways that the online audience could have been part of an active learning experience. Instead, I and the other 800 online attendees were dismissed from class early.
This experience indicates to me that the presenters hadn’t thought enough about the online audience experience. You need to put yourself in the place of an online attendee and design an experience that is as good for them as possible, rather than relegating them to second-class status. Especially when they comprise the vast majority of your audience!
Content notes
Opening pair share
The presenters started with a pair share on what people liked most about teaching. In-person participants did a pair share, while the online audience took a poll. A majority of the latter said they liked hearing what students had to say and helping them with life skills.
From English research: college teachers talk 87% of the time even in seminar classes.
One of the presenters uses pair share to start every class (as do I).
The presenters summarized the value of active learning. Pair share allows every student to contribute, by sharing their ideas with another student. “You have energy and you have engagement and involvement and you have commitment and participation. We know and have metrics on all of this. You learn better. Retain better.”
Thoughts about teaching
They mentioned research that found 20% of students graduate from college without ever having spoken in class unless they were directly called on. “That is a tragedy.”
“Part of what we are doing in this book is finding methods to allow every student to contribute what they have to say. The fancy word for this is metacognition; you think about the course contact and why you are learning and how you are learning what you are doing and that is the lesson that lasts a lifetime.”
“What do our students need from our teaching?”
“We have this idea that higher education hasn’t changed since Socrates and Plato walked around the lyceum. Not true, we saw enormous changes two years ago. In 1 week 18 million students went online during the pandemic. It’s hard to remember we brought higher ed online in a matter of weeks. That was a tremendous accomplishment.”
Active learning
The presenters shared resources on the value of active learning. (There are more in my book, The Power of Participation.)
[Click to see full size.]“[The] study by Scott Freeman is a metastudy of 250 separate studies of active learning and traditional learning using every imaginable metric including standardized testing retention application, et cetera. At the end of the study, Freeman says if this was a pharmaceutical study [traditional lecturing] would be taken off the market. [Active learning] is not radical pedagogy … but the best, most practical way to learn.”
Answering questions
An interesting idea shared by science fiction writer and polymath Samuel Delany.
“[We] need to teach people they are important enough to say what they have to say.”And here he is saying it (starts at 2:42.)
Hadn’t heard the Samuel Delany quote before in the #newcollegeclassroom webinar. Like the approach, but it’s critical that participants are prepared so it’s safe — “‘I don’t know’ is an OK and common answer”.
“On average, kids ask [around] twenty questions per hour. When they get to school, they ask three questions per hour. That is staggering. When they come to higher ed, there is all that unlearning that we have to do.”
Providing co-designed options for student assignments and evaluations.
Having students write a question they want to ask toward the end of the class. (I prefer to do this at the start!)
I like to use a closing “exit ticket activity” pair-share on lessons learned during the session.
The session closed with the presenters answering some questions about approaches to grading. (Grading was the least favorite aspect of teaching reported in the session’s second poll!) It’s a tricky topic, and I give thanks that I no longer teach college and have to deal with the difficult balancing act between my assessment of student learning and what organizations and society want to hear.
Kudos
This webinar did some things very well. Kudos for including ASL interpretation, real-time captioning, and a slightly delayed (but very usable), real-time, human-provided transcript.
Conclusion
A class is a meeting. This webinar was a meeting. It could have far more effectively demonstrated by example the power and value of the active learning that occurs with participant-driven and participation-rich education. The workshops I run put this into practice. Here’s an example. During them, I talk for less than ten minutes at a time.
Opening with formats like Post It! allows us to focus on what participants want to learn. Using fishbowl sandwiches for discussions ensures fluid wide-ranging conversations. Many other formats are in my toolbox, ready to be pulled out and used when the need arises. I hope to see many of these valuable, tested approaches adopted widely by college teachers. Our students and our society will be better for it.
Want a simple way to improve meeting session learning? Provide a shared Google Doc where all participants can take notes, ask questions, and get answers!
A shared Google Doc is an easy, familiar tool you can use to facilitate and improve real-time conversation and learning around presented content. And when the session is over, participants have a convenient archive for reference.
The idea was sparked by discovering this deleted tweet thread. “I learned today that a group of students used a Google doc to take lecture notes–they all took notes simultaneously in a collective file.”
“As they took notes they would mark places they were confused or couldn’t follow the lecture–other students would see & explain, real time.”
“At the end of the semester, as they are prepping for finals, they have this massive document of notes, questions, & explanations from peers.” —from a 2016 since-deleted tweet thread
Now this isn’t an original idea. I’ve used collaborative Google Docs at meetings since 2010 to collaboratively brainstorm and solve a problem, for scribing answers to The Three Questions, and to capture the pluses and deltas in a group spective. And a quick web search will discover numerous examples of teachers who use this technique in elementary through college classrooms.
Here’s an example from a community college class…
A group of us did something similar in 2014 when we live-blogged the PCMA Convening Leaders conference. Offering the same technique to all participants at meeting sessions may be new. (If it isn’t, let us know in the comments below!)
Create a short link to each Google Doc. I use a link that combines an abbreviation for the event with a short version of the session title. For example, an “Improving Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” session at the 2022 XYZ conference might have the link tiny.cc/XYZ2022ImproveDEI.
Add the session title and the short link to the top of the linked Google Doc.
Repeat for all meeting sessions.
For meeting owners
Before the meeting publicize that meeting session participants can and are encouraged to create collaborative notes on each session. Right before the meeting provide participants with a list of links to the collaborative docs for each session. Also, ask session presenters to display the URL for their session’s Doc and encourage participants to use it.
For session presenters
Even if meeting organizers haven’t adopted the above approach, there’s nothing to stop presenters from incorporating this technique into their sessions.
After the meeting or presentation
Change the access for each Doc to “viewer” (people with the link can see the document but not edit it) and then make the session notes available appropriately. You could share them on a private website, email the Doc links to participants, or use any other distribution method that fits.
What do you think?
If you use this method to improve meeting session learning or have ideas on extending it, please share your experience in the comments below.
Right now, I am a long-distance facilitator. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I only facilitate meetings with people who are not in the same room. Often, they are thousands of miles away.
But there are times during the event when I’m not working. While the sessions I helped participants create are taking place. During breaks when I’m not busy preparing for what’s to come. And during socials.
Why? Because, though I may have facilitated and, hopefully, strengthened the learning, connection, and community of participants present, I’m not a member of the community.
In the breaks and socials, I see participants in earnest conversations, making connections, and fulfilling their wants and needs in real-time. But I’m hardly ever a player in the field or issues that have brought them together. (Usually, as far as the subject matter of the meeting is concerned, I’m the most ignorant person present.) So I don’t have anyone to talk to at the content level. I’m physically present, but I don’t share the commonality that brought the group together. It’s about participants’ connection and community, not mine.
I may have made what’s happening better through design and facilitation, but it’s not about me.
Every once in a while, participants notice me and thank me for what I did. It doesn’t happen very often—and that’s OK. My job is to make the event the best possible experience for everyone. My reward is seeing the effects of my design and facilitation on participants. If I were doing this work for fame or glory, I would have quit it long ago.
If you’re at a meeting break or social and see a guy wandering around who you dimly remember was up on stage or at the front of the room getting you to do stuff?
It’s probably me.
No lonely breaks online
Paradoxically, when I facilitate online meetings there’s no “invisible man” lonely time. Whenever we aren’t online, we’re all alone at our separate computers. We can do whatever we please. We were never physically together, so we don’t miss a physical connection when we leave.
If I had to choose…
The loneliness of the long-distance facilitator is accentuated at in-person events by the abrupt switches between working intimately with a group and one’s outsider status when the work stops.
At online events, we are all somewhat lonely because no one else is physically present. Our experiences of other people are imperfect instantiations: moving images that sometimes talk and (perhaps?) listen.
It wouldn’t be a no-brainer choice, but if I had to choose between facilitating only in-person or online meetings, I’d choose the former. The intimacy of being physically together with others is worth the loneliness when we’re apart.
I’ve been noticing a strange trend, ever since COVID-19 caused just about all bread-and-butter meetings to vanish. Suddenly, people are calling the meetings we’re holding these days virtual meetings.
I’m sorry, but when I think of a virtual meeting, this comes to mind…
…together with content like this…
Now, before I get a storm of protests from dedicated Second Life fans, let me be clear that I’ve nothing against anyone who enjoys time in virtual worlds.
And if your meeting is using holographic telepresence to bring in a presenter or two, perhaps virtual is the right term.
Otherwise, I think there’s a better word to use. But let’s explore using virtual for a moment.
“Not physically present as such but made by software to appear to be so.”
“That may be so called for practical purposes, although not according to strict definition; very near, almost absolute.”
I can’t really quibble with the application of the first definition, but the second reminds us that virtual also means “almost”, with the unsaid connotation that “virtual” isn’t so good.
Why the rise of the phrase “virtual” meetings?
I think meeting industry people are using “virtual” to describe Zoom/Teams/BlueJeans/WebEx meetings these days because we are upset that our traditional meetings, together with our livelihoods and useful expertise, have largely disappeared overnight.
We were and are proud of the meetings we created and ran. “These internet-enabled meetings just aren’t the same!” (And we’re right, they’re not.) And we’re feeling a mixture of grief and anger that they’re gone right now.
As a result, it’s tempting and understandable to use a term like “virtual” to describe what’s taken their place. We feel a little better, because “virtual” meetings aren’t really quite as good as the face-to-face events we’ve been holding for years.
‘I wish we came up with a better name. The dictionary definition of “virtual” refers to something “simulated or extended by computer software,” while I associate the word with “that which is not real.” The “virtual” in “virtual events” makes the category seem mysterious. When something is mysterious, it’s easy to put it aside or pay less attention.’ —Dennis Shiao
… and a recent thread on MECO with Mike Taubleb, Rohit Talwar, me, Sue Walton, Naomi Romanchok, Michelle Taunton, MaryAnne Bobrow, and Gloria Nelson.
The term I think we should use
First choice: Online
Let’s (continue) to call them Online meetings! I say “continue”, because currently, online is the most popular adjective used on the internet (~1.5 billion Google hits). Everyone knows what online means: Zoom or Teams or BlueJeans or ON24 or …
Second choice: Digital
Digital is pretty descriptive (and is the second most popular adjective used: ~1.4 billion results), but to me it feels a little ambiguous. Digital could stand for Zoom or a Slack channel or Second Life or …
Not my favorites
I’d like people to stop using virtual, for the reasons shared above. (It is also less popular than the two previous terms: ~1.1 billion hits.)
Also, let’s avoid livestream for meetings that involve any interaction. I think to most people, livestream means one-way communication (think streaming a movie or music), not something that’s interactive. If you’re hosting an interactive online event, “livestreaming” seems misleading. If, however, you’re broadcasting a meeting without any interaction from the online participants, livestreaming is an appropriate description.
And what should we use for traditional meetings?
If you’re actually meeting in a room with people (let’s hope we get to experience that soon!) I prefer in person, in-person, or face-to-face. What’s the difference between the first two? “In person” is an adverb, and “in-person” is an adjective. So we hold in-person events in person. Get it?
Oh, and let’s not forget hybrid
Finally, hybrid is a useful and specific descriptor for meetings that have both in-person and online components. We’ve had hybrid meetings for years, and I predict their popularity post-pandemic will only increase.
Conclusion
The grammar police don’t always win! My opinion may make no difference — but at least I’ve shared it. What do you think? Share your favorite meeting adjectives in the comments!
Virtual photo and description attribution: Flickr user Lilith
Event Crowdsourcing: Creating Meetings People Actually Want and Need
I’m happy to announce that my third book Event Crowdsourcing will be released this Fall. It covers a fundamental yet neglected topic: creating meetings people actually want and need.
My research has shown that over half the sessions offered at traditional preplanned conferences are not what attendees actually want! Event crowdsourcing allows you to create meetings where attendees want and need every session.
Who should buy this book?
Are you a meeting planner/designer who wants to create the best possible meetings for your clients? Then you need this book!
Are you a presenter who knows the importance of meeting the wants and needs of your audience? Session crowdsourcing ensures that your sessions will reflect the real-time needs of those who attend.
Are you a conference stakeholder eager to grow an event by making it the very best it can be? When attendees are enthusiastic about your event because it meets their wants and needs, they recommend your event to their peers and return year after year. As a result, your event grows, continually adapting to the changing desires of your participants, and your event and organization communities strengthen over time.
Are you an attendee who tires of events full of irrelevant pre-planned sessions? Event crowdsourcing ensures that you will be enthusiastic about the content and value of events and sessions.
“Those doing the work are often the only ones who really understand the context. Leadership is helping build the structure and then protecting the space to do meaningful work.“ —Harold Jarche, work in 2018
Build the structure to do meaningful work
Few traditional meetings are built to do meaningful work. Instead, they unconsciously adopt an ancient model: a rote diet of lectures. Conscious meeting design, on the other hand, builds an appropriate structure that supports and leads to defined and desired outcomes, aka meaningful work.
Protect the space to do meaningful work
The old-school status roles baked into traditional meetings minimize useful connection and learning by defining in advance those who have something important to say. This makes it difficult and risky for the audience to share their own expertise and experience for everyone’s benefit.
“Leadership is helping build the structure and then protecting the space to do meaningful work.” When seen through the lens of participant-driven and participation-rich meeting design, I view Harold’s two-part definition as a perfect description of leadership for meetings.
Do your meeting designs truly support participants doing meaningful work? Do you provide leadership for meetings?
Companies are now marketing services for artificial intelligence matchmaking at events. However, unresolved issues could impede the adoption of this technology, especially by attendees.
Consider this marketing pitch for an artificial intelligence event matchmaking service:
“Using the [AI] platform…it’s easier for attendees to make sure they have the right meetings set up, and for exhibitors to have a higher return on investment in terms of connections with high-quality buyers.” —Tim Groot, CEO Grip, as quoted in What AI Means To Meetings: How Artificial Intelligence will boost ROI, Michael Shapiro, July 2017 Meetings & Conventions Magazine
A win-win for exhibitors and attendees?
Tim describes using artificial intelligence matchmaking at events as a win for both exhibitors and attendees.
I’m skeptical.
Let’s assume, for the moment, that the technology actually works. If so, I think suppliers will reap most of the touted benefits, quite possibly at the expense of attendees. Here’s why.
Successful matchmaking needs digital data about attendees. An AI platform cannot work without this information. Where will the data come from? Tim explains that his service builds a profile for each attendee. Sources include “LinkedIn, Google, and Facebook”, while also “scouring the web for additional information”.
Using social media platform information, even if attendee approval is requested first, creates a slippery slope, as privacy issues in meeting apps remain largely undiscussed and little considered by attendees during the rush of registration. The end result is that the AI matchmaking platform gains a rich reservoir of data about attendees that, without strong verifiable safeguards, may be sold to third parties or even given to suppliers.
In addition, let’s assume that exhibitors get great information about whom to target. The result: “high-value” attendees will be bombarded with even more meeting requests while attendees who don’t fit the platform’s predictions will be neglected.
In my opinion, the best and most likely to succeed third-party services for meetings are those that provide win-win outcomes for everyone concerned. Unfortunately, it’s common (and often self-serving) to overlook a core question about meeting objectives —whom is your event for? — and end up with a “solution” that benefits one set of stakeholders over another.
How well will artificial intelligence matchmaking at events work for attendees?
Artificial intelligence is hot these days, so it’s inevitable that event companies talk about incorporating it into their products, if only because it’s a surefire way to get attention from the meetings industry.
I know something about AI because in the ’80s I was a professor of computer science, and the theory of artificial neural networks — the heart of modern machine learning — was thirty years old. AI had to wait, however, for the introduction of vastly more potent technology to allow practical implementation on today’s computers.
While the combination of powerful computing and well-established AI research is demonstrating incredible progress in areas such as real-time natural language processing and translation, I don’t see why sucking social media and registration data into a database and using AI to look for correlations is going to provide attendee matchmaking that is superior to what can be achieved using participant-driven and participation-rich meeting process combined with attendees’ real-time event experience. (Once again, exhibitors may see a benefit from customized target attendee lists, but I’m looking for a win-win here.)
From the attendee’s point of view
When attendees enter a meeting room there’s a wealth of information available to help make relevant connections. Friends introduce me to people I haven’t yet met. Eavesdropping on conversations opens up more possibilities. Body language and social groupings also provide important potential matchmaking information. An AI matchmaking database includes none of these resources. All of them have led me (and just about everyone who’s ever attended meetings) to professional connections that matter.
Coda
I’ll conclude with a story. The June 2017 PCMA Convene article Can Artificial Intelligence Make You a Better Networker? describes a techsytalk session by Howard Givner where he “gave particular emphasis to the importance of facilitated matchmaking at events.” I like to think that Howard discovered this when he attended the participant-driven and participation-rich EventCamp East Coast I designed and facilitated in 2010, about which he wrote:
“…it was one of the most innovative and eye-opening professional experiences I’ve had. Aside from coming back with lots of new tips and ideas, I easily established triple the number of new contacts, and formed stronger relationships with them, than at any other conference I’ve been to.”
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!
![Offer of a Lifetime: screenshot of an email sent to Adrian Segar asking him to pay for the privilege of shaing his expertise at a meeting industry conference. 9/29/23 Subject: Are you a [TOPIC] Expert? Hi Adrian Segar, How are you doing? I wanted to let you know about Meet the Experts, a new initiative for [MEETING INDUSTRY EVENT] in [DATES] at [VENUE, LOCATION] which I think you will find interesting as a way for you to participate in the show and generate valuable leads. Attendees to [MEETING INDUSTRY EVENT] genuinely need the help and expertise of companies and advisors just like yourself. That's why we have introduced a new format, "Meet the Experts" for our 2023 show. [MEETING INDUSTRY EVENT] will bring together the brightest minds in the events industry, and this [DESCRIPTION OF OPPORTUNITY] will feature experts such as yourself creating the ideal platform for you to showcase your knowledge and connect with a highly engaged audience…](https://www.conferencesthatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Outrageous_speaking_opportunity-1024x576.jpg)
A [MARKETING PERSON] has invited me to share my expertise at a meeting industry event. Well, there’s nothing unusual about that; it happens frequently. BUT THIS TIME I GET TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE!
Keeping a recurring conference going, alive and fresh every time, is hard enough. Successfully starting a conference from scratch is even tougher.
Right now, I am a long-distance facilitator. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I only facilitate meetings with people who are not in the same room. Often, they are thousands of miles away.
What might leadership for meetings look like?
Companies are now marketing services for artificial intelligence matchmaking at events. However, unresolved issues could impede the adoption of this technology, especially by attendees.