Tag-Archive for » meeting planner «
Imagine you are going to hear Martin Luther King’s memorable “I’ve Got A Dream” speech for the first time, live and in person.
You grab your time machine manual and follow its instructions. You step into your time machine and set the location for the steps of the Lincoln Monument and the date for August 28, 1963. You put on your seatbelt, push the flux capacitor button thingy and away you go.
As you open the door of your DeLorean, you find yourself in a New York Subway. There standing on the steps is Martin Luther King getting ready to deliver his speech. Just as he starts, a subway car speeds by and its doors open. The voice of others and speeding subway cars drown out King’s speech. You can’t hear him for all the noise and distractions.
You’re think you’re dreaming and then look down at the time machine manual. In fine print you notice a caveat that says, “Using this machine may cause strange time warp malfunctions with locations, date and time. Use at your own risk.” “Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly. Think!?
How are you going to hear MLK’s famous speech if the environment is not appropriate for his presentation?
This silly analogy references just one of the things you as a conference organizer can do to help improve the content: improve the presentation environment. (See number 11).
Here are 13 things you can do now, to improve your conference content for your next meeting.
1. Offer instructor training for industry speakers.
Most industry speakers are chosen for their expertise and knowledge, not their good presentation skills. Typically, their presentation skills are severely lacking. Follow the lead of Lynn Randall of Maritz Travel which is now training all of their speakers in the Neuroscience of Presentations. If you consistently offer instructor training for several years, you are investing in your members and ultimately everyone benefits.
2. Require Learning Objectives (LOs) for all presentations.
You don’t start traveling without a goal in mind of where you want to go. So why do we allow presenters to ramble through presentations without several LOs of what they want their attendees to learn. All public education teachers identify the LOs for every 60 minutes of teaching. So why don’t conference organizers require LO’s for every presentation?
3. Have attendees evaluate whether the presentation matched the marketed description and whether the presenter met the learner objectives.
We’ve all attended a session where we look back at the conference program to make sure we are in the right room because the speaker is presenting something entirely different than what was marketed.
4. When evaluating presentations and presenters, at a minimum use the following criteria:
a. Facilitator’s Knowledge
b. Facilitator’s Delivery Style
c. Pace & Timing
d. Program Content
e. Relevance
f. I will be able to apply what I’ve learned.
5. Set a goal for an overall average favorable score of all your conference speakers.
Let your speakers know that you’ve set a goal of an overall average speaker, such as 80% favorable. Tell them they will be evaluated, ranked and judged upon their score. The following year, move that overall average favorable score up a few points to help improve the presentations of your speakers. You also can use the scores to select industry speakers from past years. For example if an industry expert scores 70% favorable, they need to improve something in order to be considered again in the future.
6. Set performance standards for all professional paid speakers.
It’s amazing that we pay speakers the same fee whether they succeed or fail. When negotiating a speaker’s fee, consider a performance standard clause in their contract. For instance, if their normal fee is $5,000, tell them you’re willing to pay the full fee of $5,000 if they score 90% favorable or higher. If they only get 80%-89% favorable, you’re willing to pay them $4,000, etc.
7. When securing a speaker for multiple gigs, place a performance cancellation clause in their contract.
Set a minimum overall average score you are willing to accept, say 80% favorable, and if the speaker scores less than that on the first presentation, you have the right to cancel any future speaking gigs without additional payments. This puts the pressure on the speaker to meet the attendee’s expectations and needs.
8. Release a public comparison ranking of all your conference speakers based on the evaluations.
Let all speakers know you will be doing this in their conference contracts. Then release the overall average favorable score, the number of attendees and the number of submitted evaluations.
9. Require all paid speakers to customize their presentation for your audience.
Include a clause in their contract that the speaker is to customize their message for your audience and industry. Have them interview at least four members of your organization to understand the audience better.
10. Stop using famous people and marquee names to put butts in chairs.
That doesn’t work. Very few people, if any, attended an event because of your keynote famous presenter. Secure relevant, business related keynote presenters.
11. Improve your presentation environment.
Look carefully at the rooms you are using for your presentation. What’s the lighting like? Are their poles or chandeliers in the way? What room layout are you using? Is there proper AV?
12. Set your keynote sessions in chevron or semi-circle.
Instead of viewing your general sessions as a way to get the most people in a room as possible, consider what would be the best attendee seating experience as possible. If you have a large, rectangle room, putting people in long row is not the best experience. Find ways to bring the audience closer to the speaker and for attendees to see the eyes of other participants.
13. Include a discussion breakout about the keynote presentation immediately following the general session.
If the presenter was good, people want to talk about it. They want to digest it and engage with the content and each other. Encourage it and secure moderators or table facilitators to help lead those discussions.
What content and education tips would you add?
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe
Face-To-Face or Virtual Go
My mother told me
To pick the very best one
And you are [not] it.
Often when meeting professionals consider whether to offer a face-to-face or virtual event, they feel as if the choice is best made by using a children’s counting rhyme.
You know…
Pizza, pizza, pizza pie
Offering virtual will cause our face-to-face to die
Or perhaps this is the rhyme you use. Get your fists ready.
One potato, two potato
Face-to-face galore
Hybrid or virtual
Which offers more?
Face-to-Face? Virtual? Hybrid? Which should I offer? The choice can seem daunting.
And understanding all of the dynamics involved with hybrid (offering both a face-to-face and virtual elements) or virtual events can be overwhelming. Heck, finding a common vernacular for virtual events is a maze itself.
Why? Virtual is a catchall phrase that encompasses a broad variety of terms. To the purists it only means 3D immersive environments like Eve Online, EverQuest, SecondLife, Virtual U or World of Warcraft. To others it means a high tech component that has a steep learning curve and unique software that must be downloaded–something most don’t want to do. Still to others it means something as simple as an online gathering of people.
Kelly A Graham, a Cisco System’s Virtual Events Strategist, says “A virtual event is a gathering of people who meet in online environment at a set time to acquire info, share, network and engage.” Using Kelly’s definition, a virtual event can include 2D and 3D environments, hybrid events, livestreaming, online chats, teleconferencing, telepresence, video conferencing, Webinars or Web streaming. In short, virtual is an umbrella term for any type of an event that is not face-to-face in person.
So figuring out the right mix for your audience can be overwhelming.
But won’t a virtual event cannibalize the face-to-face attendance? That’s the first reaction and fear of many.
And, it was the reaction of Mike Ray, Intel Americas’ North America Channel Sales Manager. Ray spoke recently on the Virtual Edge Summit 2010 panel: Learn How Oracle, Intel and SAP Extend Reach And Build Community With Hybrid Events.
In 2009, Ray decided to offer a hybrid event with both face-to-face and virtual live streaming components to his customers. His number one concern was if he did, would it cannibalize the face-to-face registration, costing more and reducing revenue. He and his team were concerned that the virtual element would deprive the company of vital elements, resources, and funding as less people opted to attend the face-to-face experience.
Ray said he now likens the decision to attend a face-to-face or virtual event similar to attending a baseball game. The choice: to watch a baseball game in person in the stadium or watch it at home on his large screen high definition TV.
His answer: “Depends.”
It “depends” on:
- Who’s playing
- How important the game is
- Where his seats are in the stadium
- How much his tickets would cost
- Who’s going with him
- Where the game is held
- How much is it going to cost to get there
- What the travel time would be
- What the weather is like
- What his schedule is like
Ray’s analogy has rich meaning for understanding how people decide to attend a face-to-face or virtual event. His baseball analogy identifies the criteria many use, often intuitively, when deciding to attend.
The attendee’s registration, whether face-to-face or virtual, “depends” on:
- Who will be at the event in person (both speakers and attendees)
- How important this event is professionally and personally to them as well as how unique the content and experience is
- Where the attendee will sit…is it a large event with more than 10,000 people so good seats are premium and they are going to watch the image magnification anyway or a smaller intimate experience
- How much the registration fee is
- Who in the attendee’s professional and social network is attending too
- Where is the face-to-face event being held…location, location, location…can the attendee do additional business in that location, can they bring the family and make it a mini-vacation, are there other things to do in the conference city, is it easy and quick to travel to
- How much is it going to cost to get there
- How long will it take to get there…especially in this day of long security lines, increased airport delays and constant flight cancellations
- Will weather impact travel, don’t forget 2010’s snowmageddon
- Can the attendee take the time off from work to attend the event
And did Ray’s concern about cannibalization of the face-to-face event ever materialize? No, just the opposite happened. Intel now has more people registered for the 2010 face-to-face event and for the virtual event than in 2009.
Engine, engine number nine,
Going down Chicago line,
Virtual, hybrid, face-to-face,
Which will win the meetings race?
What other criteria do you think people use when deciding to attend a face-to-face or virtual event? What is your experience with hybrid events? Share your thoughts.
It’s so dreamy, oh fantasy free me
So you can’t see me, no not at all
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention
Well-secluded, I see all
With a bit of a mind flip
You’re there in the time slip
And nothing can ever be the same
You’re spaced out on sensation, like you’re under sedation
Let’s do the Time Warp again!
Take a step back into time with me. Let’s do the time warp again. “It’s a jump to the left. Then a step to the right.”
Let’s go back to the halls of one of the first education institutions, the university. Let’s say it’s Oxford or Cambridge or the Byzantine University. You decide.
Now, let’s walk down to biology labs. What do you see? If you’re like me, you’d probably laugh aloud or gasp at the sight of the 11th Century biology lab. It was a mix of astrological and religious influences, dead animals, potent chemical brews and intoxicating smells. It looks nothing like the biology labs of today’s high schools and universities. It’s antiquated and archaic. It looks and feels foreign to us.
Now, let’s continue our time warp field trip and move to one of the university’s standard classrooms used for history, math or English. Amazingly, not much has changed from today’s standard higher education classrooms. It’s not as antiquated or outdated.
This classroom feels very familiar and common. It’s home. There’s a podium at the front of the room for the professor to grasp. Chairs are arranged neatly in rows facing the lectern. We can just imagine students listening passively to the teacher while taking notes. The only difference is that there probably isn’t a screen for PowerPoint projection or a wireless lavaliere.
Now, let’s time warp forward to today and into a major convention center or hotel that’s holding an annual conference. Walk down the hallway and in to one of the sessions. It doesn’t look much different than the 11th Century university lecture hall. Besides the fact that the room may be carpeted and the chairs are covered in fabric, not much is different.
Could it be time for a change?
Why is it that with all the education advancements in how people learn we’ve not changed the way we deliver presentations? Why is it that with current neuroscience brain research and reports from major universities on how people learn in a digital age that we continue to promote ballroom presentations where attendees sit in nice rows, look at the back of each other’s heads and quietly passively listen? Why is it that smart conference planners, seat the audience in rounds or pods, but don’t require the presenters to incorporate small group interaction? Why is it that when research teaches us that listening is the least effective way to learn that we continue to make it the primary conference experience? Why is it that at some conferences, attendees learn more from hallway conversations than from sessions? Passive listening is certainly a great way to kill curiosity and the thirst for exploration.
Is it because the general sessions and breakouts with lecture based monologues are efficient and effective? Is it because it’s easy to steer people into large rooms like a cattle drive and compel them to sit quietly, listen and learn? Anyone that ever watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show in the theatres knows better than to just sit there passively. It’s about participation and engagement.
So who is that efficient and effective for anyway? It’s certainly not efficient and effective for the attendee or their learning. It’s the least effective way for them to learn and the least efficient return on their registration dollar.
“With your hands on your hips. You bring your knees in tight. But it’s the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane, Let’s do the time warp again.” Jump forward into an annual conference of the future. What do you see? Is it still the 11th Century model? Or is it different?
Could it be time for a change? What do you think?
What event professional do you know that takes full responsibility for the entire attendee experience at their face-to-face event or meeting?
What would meetings and events look like if meeting professional’s quit blaming others for the content, programming and experience of the event?
For the past 18 months I’ve consistently heard meetings and event professionals denounce the government and organizations for lack of support of face-to-face meetings and events. I’ve heard them cry and bemoan that their value is not appreciated by their executives, the Board of Directors, the public and even the President. Many have said that our industry associations need to do more to promote the vale of face-to-face meetings.
Typically, when event professionals try to educate their boss, executives or Board members on their value, they talk about the value of logistics they perform. You know, cost savings, cost avoidance, those kind of things. Or they state the past conference’s evaluation smile factor. Or they quote the economic impact of meetings as the primary reason to meet as handed down from our industry associations. Or they start talking about the number of jobs each meeting creates.
So what! The publication industry created thousands of jobs and had a positive impact on the economy. But that didn’t stop that industry from experiencing disruptive innovation.
So tell me, how can you prove your value to the CEO or executives if you can’t prove the value of the content or the programming? How do you know that lessons learned at your conference were applied to your attendees’ business? What were the results six or twelve months after your meeting?
How can meetings and event professionals continue to distance themselves from the real meat and experiences of the conference? Are we seriously kidding ourselves that meetings and events, for meetings sake are more important than the content and programming of that meeting?
If that’s the case, then no wonder the government, elected officials, and executives have doubted the value of meetings. We’ve tried to prove the dollar’s worth of a meeting without proving the value of the content of the meeting. That’s like saying schooling is important because it provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and provides a place for our kids to go during the day. Yet, we hold our public schools to a high standard and expect specific outcomes. We’ve standardized the education process and if the kids don’t meet specific knowledge and skills assessments, they fail and the schools fail. And who wants to send their kids to a failing, poor-rated schools?
With limited professional development dollars per head per company, who wants to send their employees to a conference that doesn’t stimulate the heck out of them from a learning perspective? Oh, but the content and learning opportunities are not the meeting professional’s job, you say.
Can you imagine what would happen if the public started failing meetings and events because the content and programming was below expectations? Oh wait, that did happen and we call it the AIG effect. But instead of increasing the value of the content and programming, meetings professionals have cried foul! Or we’ve screamed, “But my meetings aren’t like AIG’s.”
Guess what, the public doesn’t care. Society has moved the goal posts and imposed new expectations on meetings and events. They want new measures of performance! And attendees want content that is relevant, that pushes them to change things up when they get back to the shop. They don’t want another set of meeting rooms with chairs in a row!
When are meeting and event professionals going to wake up and measure the ROI of the content and programming elements that they put into the meeting from the beginning? That means spending more time crafting the right overarching meeting’s experience and education goals. That means allocating additional resources to securing the right speakers that understand the content and good adult learning techniques. That means focusing on the learner objectives of each workshop and session. That means we must also measure the outputs (months after the meeting) to see if the attendees walked away with the right learnings that we intended.
When are we going to take the bull by the horns and help drive the right speakers, programming elements and content for the meeting? Ultimately, that’s what makes or breaks the meeting. Suppliers (including 3rd parties and consultants) attend primarily for networking. Attendees attend primarily for the content, at least that’s how they justify attendance to their boss–by the content. They don’t justify their attendance based on the meeting’s experience, or networking. If you don’t get the attendees there, the suppliers and consultants don’t have anyone to network with.
When was the last time you said, “I’m going to return to that conference? It was so well organized. I didn’t stand in line for registration. The rooms were set perfectly. The closing party was a blast. The food was great. So I’m going to go back again.”
Ha! Not if you are a true attendee. You grade the value of conferences and events on the experience you had, whether the content met your expectations, whether the speakers delivered, whether you had emotional connections or whether you learned anything that can be applied to your business or position.
So when are event professionals going to see themselves as the partner in the attendee’s experience and not just the logistics order taker? When are our meetings industry associations going to step up to the plate and teach meetings professionals how to craft the conference experience appropriately with an emphasis on being attendee-centric and a focus on the education design of the content? [Stop saying that's another department's job. You've just reduced yourself to an administrative assistant to that department!]
I’m tired of watching the meetings and events professionals default to the old way of planning where they distance themselves from the content of the program. If meeting professionals don’t step up to the plate and see themselves as the strategic partner to the program and content, then they will continue to sound like a dripping faucet to the rest of the world.
Just saying…
What say ye?
CEIR Report Power Of Exhibitions In 21st Century Review Part II Read part I.
Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try! Dr. Seuss
Theodore Gisele, aka Dr. Seuss, had a great idea about thinking. Think differently.
Now apply Dr. Seuss’ thinking strategy to the next event or exhibition that you’re planning.
Think about it from many angles, from top to bottom, to inside out, to before and after, to what’s it all about. Think about who’s attending, who’s not and why. Think about how to do it differently and not repeat what you’ve done on the fly. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try.
If more exhibition and event organizers would stop and think before planning their next event, they might come up with more “thinks…if only they try.” Unfortunately, many organizers continue to plan their events the same way they’ve always done it. They expect that the old dog method will lead to new, improved results.
CEIR’s recent report, Power of Exhibitions In the 21st Century: Identify, Discover and Embrace Change from the Point Of View of Young Professionals (those under the age of 40), shows that exhibitions and event organizers can’t continue to “wash, rinse and repeat” and expect the same results. It’s time for event organizers to wash the old strategy right out of their hair and think differently in their planning process, especially if they want to attract Gen X and Y.
Here are six more takeaways from the report that organizers, exhibitors and event professionals can use for improving the planning and executing of future exhibitions and events.
1. Event Web 2.0-enabled sites are a necessity, not a luxury.
Websites and conference eCommunities are the gateways to an organization and its events. 73% of young professional respondents interviewed created a must-see list of exhibitors before attending the event. Unfortunately, most ranked current event Websites poorly as disorganized, outdated, incomplete and not user friendly.
Suggestion
The online event eCommunity and Website with show floor plans and exhibit descriptions is a must. Having this available before and after the show as well as via mobile devices is a no brainer. Similarly, organizers must give more attention and investment to the event Website by making it more user-friendly, robust, vibrant and updated regularly.
2. Stop the selling madness!
Gen X respondents who attended an exhibition feel there are too many sellers and not enough buyers. They also feel that there is too much pressure from sales people who staff the booths.
Suggestion
Younger generations do not appreciate the hard sell. Exhibitors should endeavor to explain to younger attendees what they are offering and what they are capable of without pushing a sale. Tricking them into scanning a badge to enter a drawing is not a best practice for gaining trust. They want transparency.
3. Age discrimination will cost you! Let no one despise their youth.
Many young professionals expressed age discrimination, ignored by show exhibitors because of their age. This mistake can cost an exhibitor future sales. While these individuals may not have the final purchasing decision for their employers, two-thirds do have the power to make recommendations and influence the buying decision.
Suggestion
Event organizers can work with exhibitors to help them understand that young professionals heavily influence the purchasing decisions of their employers. Organizers can also help exhibitors learn new sales approaches like consultative and relationship sales.
4. Interactivity and engagement are imperative.
Young professionals have a strong preference for interactive exhibits versus static exhibits. They also want interactive educational sessions where they can discuss content with each other versus monologue, lecture-style presentations.
Suggestion
Organizers should recommend that exhibitors consider hands-on, interactive elements to attract younger professionals. Exhibits that combine high-tech with high-touch and use virtual gaming components will be successful. Session presenters and facilitators that use hands-on, activity based efforts that allow attendees to work together collaboratively and discuss issues are also important.
5. Content is king and human interaction is queen.
38% of respondents considered the educational sessions the most important component of the exhibition, over the exhibition, social events and networking. Nearly nine in ten that attended a recent exhibition participated in an education session. The content of the session was the most influential element while the session title and speaker had the most influence on Millennials. 35% said they go for the networking. Both Gen X and Y stressed that they want to interact and learn from each other and industry veterans.
Suggestion
Organizers must spend as much time on planning the event program as they do on the logistics. They should secure industry veterans that can give short presentations and facilitate discussions. Providing relevant, exclusive content with appealing session titles and descriptions that accurately reflect the presentation is also important.
6. Yours, mine and ours!
Opportunities must be created that permit attendees to contribute their own ideas and suggestions to the exhibition and event. Creating show floor social spaces and lounges with power ports will draw and retain traffic of young professionals. Both of these points gives attendees the feeling the show is as much theirs as it is the exhibitors. Both groups also want wireless access on the show floor and throughout the event.
Suggestion
Organizers should crowdsource event ideas, suggestions and education topics. They should also ask facilities to provide free wireless on show floors and venue for attendees. They should include wireless request in future RFPs. Are facilities better off charging for this or helping their clients satisfy long-term attendance challenges?
Did any of these points surprise you? What resonates with you about your attendees? What changes will you make to your next event to attract and retain young professionals?
CEIR’s Power of Exhibitions In the 21st Century Part 1 41 page report offers a wealth of insight on what Gen X and Gen Y want.
ICEEM (The International Center for Exhibitor and Event Marketing) is hosting a soldout webinar on Wednesday February 17 entitled “Do Young Professionals Think Your Event Sucks?” IAEE and CEIR are providing an archived recording of this Webinar to members and nonmembers for a nominal fee.
Recent Comments