Nine conference mythodologies

Nine conference mythodologies: A photograph of a yellow Lego warrior wearing a red cape and shield and holding a silver sword. Image attribution: Flickr user dunechaser.Long ago, consultant Tom Gilb coined the term “mythodology” to describe erroneous but commonly held beliefs about how something should be done. Here are nine conference mythodologies.

Mythodology: We know what our attendees want to learn about

Reality: No, you don’t. At least half the sessions programmed at traditional conferences are not what attendees want.

Mythodology: Event socials are a good way to meet people

Reality: People tend to stay with people they already know at event socials. Participant-driven and participation-rich events provide far more opportunities to meet people you actually want to meet.

Mythodology: A “conference curator” can improve the quality of your conference content

Reality: Sadly, conference curators don’t exist. However, discovering the content wants and needs of participants at the event and satisfying them with the collective resources in the room is routinely possible and significantly improves the quality of your conference content.

Mythodology: Learning occurs through events

Reality: Learning is a continual process; formal events only contribute a small percentage to the whole.

Mythodology: Conference programs should be stuffed full of sessions so there’s something of interest for everyone

Reality: Downtime is essential for effective learning and connection, so providing conference white space is essential. (Trick: Stuff your program if you must, but give attendees explicit permission to take their own downtime when they need it.)

Mythodology: Adding novelty to a meeting makes it better

Reality: Novelty is a one-time trick. Next time it’s old. But making your meeting better lasts. Go for better, not just different.

Mythodology: Big conferences are better conferences

Reality: Better for the owners perhaps (if the meeting is making a profit) but not better for participants. Today’s most successful conferences are micro conferences. (And, by the way, most conferences are small conferences.) 

Mythodology: We know what attendees like, don’t like, and value about our meeting

Reality: If you’re using smile sheets or online surveys, you’re learning nothing about the long-term value of your meeting. This is the meeting industry’s biggest dirty secret. Use long-term evaluation techniques [1] [2] instead.

Mythodology: We can contract a venue for our meeting before we design it

Reality: Sounds silly when put like that, but it happens all the time. Designing your meeting and then choosing a venue that can showcase your design will improve your meeting experience (and can save you big bucks!)

I bet you can think of more than these nine conference mythodologies. Share them in the comments!

Image attribution: Flickr user dunechaser

Design your meeting BEFORE choosing the venue!

design before choosing venueI love meeting design clients, but there is one mistake I see them making over and over again.

Clients invariably ask me to help design their meeting after they’ve chosen a venue! Here’s why they do it, and why it’s a mistake.

Why don’t clients design the meeting first?

Here’s why clients contract a venue before designing their meeting. The work of choosing and contracting a venue has to occur early during event production, before tackling major logistical necessities like budgeting, marketing, food and beverage, accommodations, etc. Unfortunately, meeting process design is still a relatively new activity to most meeting stakeholders. So, they default to the familiar workflow mindset and overlook the need to think about how desired meeting outcomes might affect venue choice.

Meeting planners and venue staff are generally comfortable determining space needs for traditional events once they know the:

  • type of event;
  • number of attendees; and
  • meeting duration.

In my experience, however, they have little idea of the space and room set requirements for participant-driven and participation-rich meetings, which typically require:

  • larger general session rooms, because participants are moving about and/or sit so they are facing one another rather than sitting in fixed dense sets of tables and chairs; and
  • more separate breakout spaces for participants to meet.

As a result, ~95% of the time I review floor plans or visit the fait accompli venue I discover that incorporating the interactive work that is a hallmark of participation-rich meetings will require compromises and workarounds.

According to Destination Hotels’ fourth annual State of the Meetings Industry survey, “nearly 68 percent of [meeting planners] said that flexible meeting spaces rated an 8, 9 or 10 in importance when choosing a meeting site”, so a majority of meeting planners are aware of the importance of having a venue that supports the needs of the event. Unfortunately, it seems that most planners are unaware of the specific kinds of flexibility they’ll need. The best way to make sure you’ll meet flexibility needs is to design your event in advance. You’ll then have the information to contract space and services that fit.

The consequences of putting the venue-selection cart before the meeting design horse

What happens if you don’t design before choosing a venue? Sometimes, I have to work with venue spaces and can’t-be-changed room sets that make it almost impossible to design an effective interactive and participatory meeting experience. Frequently, the client chose rooms using the venue website’s traditional seating-capacity rubrics, rubrics that simply don’t provide adequate space for participatory session designs.

In addition, room turn-over considerations (related to venue staffing, turn-over costs, and furniture options) cause problems that you can easily avoid if additional, appropriately set space is available. This allows session flow to truly meet the needs of the event design rather than being constrained by logistics.

If you cannot expand the contracted venue space, you’ll have crowded rooms, leading to:

  • lowered interactivity;
  • poorer participant experience; and
  • reduced meeting effectiveness.

If you can expand contracted venue space, this will typically necessitate additional unanticipated expense that the client could often have avoided or reduced if the space had been included and negotiated as part of the original contract. My clients often discover that belatedly adding space onto an existing contract is too expensive for their already-finalized budget, so they reluctantly stay with what they originally contracted. The quality of their event suffers.

Design before choosing the venue!

Planning to ask for help with event design? Then involve an experienced designer early, before you commit to a venue. You will then know the space and set-ups needed to produce a successful participation-rich meeting. This will ensure that you will not have to expensively renegotiate additional space or put up with meeting space that reduces the effectiveness of your event.