Does offering free live streaming of an event cannibalize its face-to-face attendance?
Is it the responsibility of virtual attendees to share the cost of the face-to-face event? Should face-to-face attendees bear the full costs of the event including any expenses related to live streaming? What are the benefits of attending a face-to-face event versus virtual attendance? Why do people choose to attend a face-to-face event?
These are all great questions that people have asked regarding Meeting Professionals International’s (MPI) WEC 2009 virtual access content strategy. Regardless the organization, these are the same questions every nonprofit association will eventually face.
Ok, WEC09 what is it? Is it World Education Congress or World Extreme Cagefighting? Given the current debate about MPI’s decision to charge for virtual attendance for its conference (after offering it free at January’s MeetDifferent), I suspect we could make some arguments that they are both one and the same. 
Oh, I digress. Wanted to add some levity here even though they share the same Twitter #hashtag.
So does offering free content online, in this case live streaming, undermine the face-to-face event or experience? Will people choose to stay home to watch and not pay to attend the event? Let’s turn to the sports industry for comparisons.
The Face-To-Face Experience Versus Virtual
Does live streaming an event undermine the value of the face-to-face event? Consider the NFL and Super Bowls.
Crazed Football Fans
We all know people that purchase tickets to attend the NFL’s face-to-face events. I submit to you that they are not paying a fee for the content that they could get at home on their TV free. They are paying for the NFL experience, the opportunity to see it live in person. It’s all about the the thrill of adrenalin, the roar of the crowd, the sights, sounds, tastes and smells of the live event coupled with the ability to be in one place with like-minded fans at the same time. It is a remarkable, unique and memorable experience like none other and people pay high dollars to be there in person. (Does this remind anyone of a book called The Experience Economy?) However, if the NFL team is doing poorly, few want to attend their face-to-face events or watch it live.
Have you ever heard anyone that is attending the Super Bowl complain that people are watching the event free on TV worldwide? Have you ever heard a Super Bowl attendee exclaim that they are paying thousands for travel, lodging and expenses and therefore everyone watching live should pay too?
No, that’s ludicrous. Everyone knows that the face-to-face experience is unique and people are willing to pay those high dollars for the experience, not the content. [Now if the WEC09 experience is not unique, unforgettable and remarkable, that’s a different conversation.]
I believe this is the same thing happening with association conferences and events. Members are paying a conference registration fee, not for the content, but for the face-to-face experience. They are paying to be there in person, connect with others and network. They are paying for the sights, sounds, tastes and smells of that conference experience and to be at the same place at the same time with a large body of like-minded individuals. Those that are not there would also like to take part and see the content free. They know they are missing the full conference experience.
What do you think? Why do you think people attend face-to-face events? Is it the content, the networking, the experience? A combination of those? Why do you think people are so afraid that the live-streaming of an event will undermine the face-to-face experience? Share your thoughts.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at two different business models regarding live-streaming content.
well first off i agree with all your points, but i would take it one step further: a lot of people go to the trouble and expense of going to the superbowl in person BECAUSE it’s freely available on television.
i was recently told by a tour operator that the #1 tourist site in boston is not any of the revolutionary war sites . . it’s the front of the Cheers bar. People saw it on TV, so they become terribly eager to see it in person.
i go nuts trying to explain to union musicians that they should stop asking for any fee to be on television. in my experience, mass media is a promotional tool, not a product to sell. people who think of TV as a product and not as a means of promoting something else eventually end up not being on TV very much.
however, there is another scenario– there is this guy who is considered the top west coast swing dance instructor in the world. He gives weekend workshops that cost $300 per person, and he never lets anyone videotape them. In his case, it works, because it’s a finite community of mostly repeat attendees, he has a monopoly on his knowledge and stature, and his information, which took a lifetime to create, is so dense can’t be digested in one pass. that’s a different beast than an event where you are just catching up on the latest. -jl
@Justin
Interesting thought there about the popularity of something on TV. Thanks for adding a different view of this issue. Cheers!
Hi Jeff,
I think that livestreaming is a decidedly an enhancement, not a replacement of an event. As Justin so nicely illustrates above, the livestreaming acts as real-time advertising for being at the event itself in person. I think associations need to realize the value that this access adds to their membership, as well as the marketing it provides for future events.
Great article, Jeff. I plan to forward to our association’s leadership!
@Karen:
Excellent way to shift the traditional thinking that live streaming could undermine an event. Instead see the live streaming as an enhancement, not a replacement and an promotion of future events. Thank you for sharing.
Karen and Justin both gave excellent observations. I personally value live events much higher than live streamed events or webinars. I find that for whatever reason, I always end up with more takeaways from a live presentation. Perhaps it is the excitement, immediate interaction from peers at the event, or ability to ask the speaker a question. Beyond the educational benefits, the networking is priceless.
I understand that it can be costly for an association to provide a live stream of an event. As Jeff suggested in a previous post- it may be very possible to find a happy sponsor to cover administrative costs and allow little to no cost for access.
Even without a sponsor, live streams of an event should probably be offered at no cost or a very low cost to members who cannot attend the event. A higher tiered price could be offered for non-member, non-attendees. But as Karen points out, making it more accessible would only promote its value. If I could afford to watch a few sessions from WEC09, and show the value I found in it, I may be able to justify joining MPI and/or attending the meeting in 2010. Unfortunately, it the current economy, professional development is often one of the first budget cuts.
Jeff-you have really done a fair and excellent job of covering all of this. Thank you.
@Christina
I’m with you! I love the energy and excitement of attending a face-to-face event. Thanks for sharing your views here.
First — to comment on Justin’s note: we live in DC around the corner from both Ford’s Theatre and “the house where Lincoln died.” We are fascinated by the no. of people who don’t go into either, who sometimes don’t even get off the dbl.-decker tour buses but just take photos of the SIGNS of both venues. It’s not terribly experiential.
That said, sadly, there is not much experiential learning in DC — lots of amazing sites but not much w/ which to interact.
So tho’ we think that people want experiences, do they really? And are experiences what each person makes of them for her/himself?
At MeetDifferent, I was not feeling well one morning and stayed in my hotel room to watch the live-streaming of a general session. It was so nice to be able to do so! I had the advantage of listening, making notes, and discussing w/ people electronically and later f2f because I could listen/watch/learn.
The points made about people and interaction w/ them being a major reason to attend a meeting lead me back to gathering a group to watch/listen and discuss and then feed it back to those on site.
This is still about so much more than charging for a service – it’s about building and continuing a community of practice and allowing it to thrive in a way that works for all.
We “free agent learners” will find the right places to get the education we want and need.
How are we going to resolve this? And who wants to boil this down to some key issues — the “if it were an ideal world, this is what MPI [in this case] would do”?
Kind of weird, but I think MPI has done our industry a tremendous service. By charging for virtual attendance, they have sparked spirited discussion that will help other meeting organizers make the right moves.
From an education standpoint, I think MPI competes well with the other options (IAEE, ASAE & PCMA). Since I work mostly with companies that do really big tradeshows & conferences, I tend to have more networking and business success by attending IAEE or PCMA. For ASAE, I actually get a shot at some c-level decision makers. That’s very attractive.
So what does this all mean? I personally don’t attend major events for the content, but count on that content to help draw others that I need to interact with for business success. If I experience great or crappy content, I tell others. If it is mediocre, I tell no one. Conference attendance is all about growing and maintaining a professional network for me.
Dave Lutz – @velchain
Velvet Chainsaw Consulting
@Velchain (Dave):
I too think this situation has actually brought a much needed discussion to the forefront. That’s why I’m continuing to write about it because people outside of the MPI membership also have these questions regarding live streaming conferences and events. Thanks for adding your thoughts too.
@Joan:
I think people want experience and community. They want both. However, I argue that people can get robust communities online now. They can find their niche groups there as well as many large assocaitions have done a poor job at building community for industry special interest groups. (Gosh, remember MPI’s SIGs?) I’m not willing to pay for community. I’ll pay for a unique experience but I don’t pay to meet other like-minded individuals of practice. I think that the topics of community, experience, association membership are definitely worth exploring more.
As for how are we going to resolve this? I agree with Dave that the core issue is bigger than MPI. It’s just MPI was the first out of the gate charging for this service. I think there is a lot of education about this issue that still needs to occur.
As for MPI specific, I’m hoping that some others will address “if it were an ideal world, this is what MPI in this case would do…” too. If anyone wants to guest post on this issue, let me know.
[...] Yesterday, I looked at the question: Does offering free live streaming of an event cannibalize its face-to-face attendance? [...]
Whether there is a charge or not, I believe meeting planners are often slow to embrace this technology because of fear that they will lose attendance at their events. I am eager to see how supply and demand will effect webcasting of live events. On the one hand, people are expecting to be able to find content online. When does this expectation turn into a “must have” value added offering from the association in order to retain membership. I’m thinking sooner rather than later. We just need the technology to catch up to make it more affordable for the associations. I don’t blame them for charging for it now…it can cost a pretty penny if it is done right (my background is with a webcasting company).
I also think that webcasts, if used effectively in future marketing campaigns, can actually increase the attendance at future events. I’m looking forward to seeing and being a part of how the event industry learns to embrace these technologies.
@April – thanks for adding your voice to the discussion. I too am looking forward to see how the event industry learns to embrace these new technologies.
just to add one more historical perspective to this,
in the 50′s, when television started to take hold, movie studios saw it as a threat and competition, and went to great lengths to counter it with vistavision, surround sound, etc. but now every movie is made with the business plan of it being in theaters, then on DVD, then on cable, then on network TV. (Most movies make the bulk of their money on DVD sales, not theatrical showings, as the DVD’s can sell for years). Long story short, instead of seeing the new technology and “free” TV viewing as a threat, they adjusted their business model to take advantage of it. and they make more money now than ever. the music biz and napster was a similar tale. record stores died, but pop music is selling more than ever.
in the present discussion, instead of sticking to a live event with streaming added, perhaps the technology could be incorporated into events so as to be a moneymaker, such as added content from your speakers, interaction with tele-viewers, etc etc . . . who knows? my biggest frustration in my presentations is i never have enough time and i can never glad-hand enough. that’s just one thought. i am looking at this more as a media producer/ presenter than a live event impresario . . . but anyway, summation, if you don’t adjust to the new technology your event will be streaming anyway from personal cell phones. can’t beat it, may as well join it and find a way to use it to add ever more value and make it work. –jl
@Justin:
Another great historical perspective of this issue. Thanks for keeping the conversation going.
Getting through some reading and read a book review in Busn. Week (7/13 & 20) of “Free:The Future of a Radical Price” by the e-i-c of Wired. It is worth reading since it discussed gaining customers by giving ‘stuff’ away. http://tinyurl.com/l9kdv3
This is exactly the topic we are struggling with at our association. We are trying to deliver content to those people who either can’t afford to pay for our in person conference, or who can’t take 3 days out of their schedules to attend, however, we also can’t afford to cover the cost of this technology. We would have to move our budget and take money away from one area which could impact the quality of say the speakers we are delivering. Finding a sponsor is an option – but this year we have struggled to get sponsors for just our plenary speakers, so unless the economy really takes a huge leap pretty quickly – companies won’t be spending the money to cover these kids of things.
I would like to hear if there are any other associations that have done this and have found a business model that has worked for them which didn’t pass the cost onto the end user?
Quinne:
There are some low cost alternatives for livestreaming your event that won’t break the bank…how about free? I’ve even gone as far as using a flip camera, with Internet access and Livestream or Ustream to share the general sessions with those not in attendance. For a fee, you can use one of those online livestreaming providers for password protected viewing.
I’ve seen some associations that are offering the livestreaming free using marketing dollars, offered free only to members and for a fee to nonmembers, some that charge a reduced rate and some that charge the same fee as a full onsite conference registration. I’m one that will not pay the exact same fee as full conference regsitration to view the event’s content virtually. $15 or $20 for a couple of general sessions is a fee I’ll consider. Why won’t I pay a full fee for virtual access–because the content is probably not exclusive to the event and can be found somewhere on the Internet for free.
Hope that helps. Does anyone else want to share how they fund livestreaming or what business model has worked for them with livestreaming?