pitching

An innovative conference competition format

Monday, September 17th, 2018 by Adrian Segar

innovative conference competition: photograph of two conference participants facing each other in front of a projected award screen. In the foreground, an emcee stands with his back to the camera and his arms raised upwards.My Dutch friend and expert moderator, Jan Jaap In der Maur, recently shared an innovative format for an in-conference pitch competition he devised for the Conventa Crossover Conference, in Ljubljana, Slovenia:

“There were also the Conventa Crossover Awards. Traditionally, this kills the dynamics of every conference: there were 16 finalists, who all had to be given the opportunity to pitch. The initial, but rather traditional idea was to allow them all 10 minutes. This would have lead to 2 (!) hours of pitching, which wouldn’t have been fair to anyone.

At the same time, we didn’t want the pitches to be too short and we wanted the participants not only to vote, but also to learn from the projects. So this is what we did:

First, all finalists were allowed to show a video of 90 seconds and present a pitch of 30 seconds. So only 2 minutes in total. Then, all finalists were given a desk. In four rounds of 15 minutes each, participants were given the opportunity to visit a maximum of 4 projects, to ask questions and get more information.

Once again, this allowed participants to only invest time in projects they were genuinely interested in. And the finalists only had to present to those who really wanted to listen. In the end, some of the finalists talked to many participants and some only talked to a very small group. Is this fair? Well, maybe not. But hey … this was a competition!”
—Jan-Jaap, New formats and great pictures from Conventa Crossover

What I like about this process

  • Many conference “competitions” are actually marketing contests in disguise rather than judgments of the merits of the products/services/concepts entered. Entrants who do the best job of sewing up participant votes beforehand emerge triumphant. J-J’s format, which includes opportunities during the competition to first inform and then share detailed information with interested participants helps make the event a genuine competition, instead of one whose outcome is a foregone conclusion.
  • Minimizing the time available for initial introductions makes a lot of sense. It forces competitors to concentrate on clearly communicating their entry’s core features and frees up valuable conference time.
  • Requiring a video — which allows any number of communication approaches — plus a live pitch, efficiently showcases each entry in both a creative and a personal way, giving participants a wide-spectrum feel for both the entry and its creators.
  • Introducing the entrants and then providing follow-up time for in-depth explorations and learning about a subset of the entries is a great way to turn a traditional competition into learning experiences chosen by participants. If you read this blog regularly, you’ll know I’m a fan of conference formats that grant participants opportunities to choose their learning journey!

What I might change

  • 4 15-minute rounds for the final phase seems a little longer than necessary. Perhaps 7 – 10 minutes per round would free up time for other conference activities?
  • The article doesn’t mention the details of the final vote or the number of “prizes”. At the time of writing, the finalists’ page implies that there will be a single “Conventa Best Event Award”, and that “The votes from the participants account for 20% of the overall score”, implying that there is a separate jury that will provide the other 80%. Perhaps there were good reasons for this voting format, rather than having the meeting participants decide the “winner(s)”. Regardless, I think it’s always best to provide a public explanation and rationale for any voting scheme used.

Conclusion

How many uninteresting “Awards” sessions have you sat through? (Uninteresting, that is, unless you got an award or a friend of yours did.) And in how many of those sessions did you learn something interesting and/or useful? Not many, I bet!

Jan Jaap’s innovative conference competition format neatly and efficiently integrates useful participant-selected learning into an event. Congratulations J-J on rethinking and improving on what is typically a rote conference component!

Tags: , , , , , , , , | Posted in Event design | No Comments »

How to trash your brand

Monday, August 20th, 2018 by Adrian Segar

Photograph: An American Airlines flight attendant pitches a credit card on a full plane.

American Airlines just provided a great example of how to trash your brand. At this point, if I could completely avoid flying American Airlines I would. Not because of the airline’s mediocre rankings in on-time arrivals, lost baggage, fees, and customer satisfaction. After all, there are some airlines that are even worse. (Spirit, I’m looking at you.)

No, it’s their infuriating habit of pitching credit cards to passengers on every flight. For example, while I was trying to sleep on the red-eye I took last week.

I find the two- to three-minute pitches really annoying. We are literally a captive audience, strapped into our seats with nowhere to escape.

To add insult to injury, The Points Guy reports that many of the claims made for the credit card are misleading or simply incorrect.

What the airline says

According to American Airlines spokesperson, Sunny Rodriguez: “We have found that in-flight is a great time to talk with our customers about airline credit cards.”

Actually, Sunny, you’re not talking with your customers, you’re talking at them. There’s a big difference.

Notice that this justification is 100% about what’s good for American Airlines. Not what’s good for its customers, as the following sample of customer complaints illustrates:

Why does American Airlines do this?

Besides annoying the heck out of me, I’m at a loss to understand how this is a good business decision.
—Is the revenue they receive when some hapless passenger signs up a significant boost to their bottom line?

—Are flight attendants so eager to supplement their salaries (apparently, they get ~$50 for every new customer) that they beg the airline to add extra work to their flight duties?

—And, most importantly, does American Airlines think that pitching their credit card on every flight to captive passengers improves their brand?

After all, this survey found that over 90% of airline passengers said they’d never apply for a credit card in flight. (And, of course, there are those who have already got one—yet still have to put up with the same spiel on every subsequent trip!)

A creative alternative

Even if American Airlines truly believe that hawking credit cards to a captive audience is a good thing, they don’t have to do it in a way that annoys almost everyone on the airplane. Edward Pizzarello notes that United Airlines also pitches cards on their flights, using a classic marketing technique that is far less intrusive and, I suspect, far more effective.

Flight attendants walk through the cabin handing out free boxes of mints printed with a code for a United Airlines card offer. Yes, the classic giveaway, goodwill marketing approach! Passengers are free to ignore the advertisement and, regardless, receive a small gift. Pizzarello concludes: “Mints versus speeches?  I’ll take the mints.”

Can American Airlines learn?

It amazes me that AA doesn’t realize (or doesn’t care) that customers are turned off by brands that spray unwanted pitches on trapped consumers.

Frankly, I’m pessimistic that American Airlines can change the culture that leads to this kind of clueless marketing.

A final piece of evidence: the American Airlines pitch for paying more for seats that are as roomy as those they provided standard five years ago.

I call it “The seat I used to have in Economy.”

Image attribution: Quartzy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Posted in Marketing | 1 Comment »