Tag-Archive for » mpi «
Should you offer live streaming of your conference for free or for a fee? 
Many associations and conference planners face this question and there are no easy answers. If you read this blog regularly, you know I have an opinion that has sparked great debate around this issue. Most agree that live streaming is a great value add-on and way to reach more people. But at what and who’s cost?
In the past five days, two organizations held face-to-face conferences with live streaming:
- SmartBrief & Socialfish’s Buzz2009 in Washington DC, July 9, 2009
- Meeting Professionals International’s WEC 2009, in Salt Lake City, July 11-14, 2009
Buzz2009 sold out with 70 attendees for its boutique association social media conference. Attendees paid $395 or $495 for the one-day experience. Buzz offered a free live streaming 90-minute webinar with four panelists and one moderator featuring Alltop’s Guy Kawasaki and GasPedal’s Andy Sernovitz.
WEC 2009 was $625 for full event or $560 for one-day ticket and had approximately 2,500 people onsite. (This is the best guess I could get from onsite attendees.) MPI charged $299 for members or $399 for nonmembers for full Virtual Access Pass (VAP) to live streaming or $19 for the live streaming of the 90-minute opening general session. WEC 2009′ s 90-minute opening general session had actor Ben Stein, COO for the Obama Presidential Inauguration Betsy Myers, and Harrah’s Entertainment chairman, CEO and president Gary Loveman.
Both asked people to use a Twitter hashtag and tweet during their events. Here’s an interesting comparison of Buzz2009’s Webinar and WEC2009’s opening general session Twitter reach for their respective 90-minute presentations and from one day from each event. Statistics are from wthashtag.com and transcripts from twitter search.
Comparison of Twitter tweets from two 90-minute sessions from two conferences SmartBrief and SocialFish's Buzz2009 and MPI's WEC 2009.
Interesting comparison, right? Buzz2009 has 379% more people who did not attend the face-to-face event tweeting about their event. WEC 2009 had less people tweeting about the event, approximately 7% of total attendance. Yes, WEC probably made some money from their paid VAP that Buzz2009 did not.
(Note: In case you’re wondering, Michael McCurry tweeted yesterday a different total number of tweets for MPI’s WEC2009, 1,093. That’s the total number of tweets from several days, not just one day or a 90-minute presentation.)
From my perspective, the free live streaming reached more people and had more people engaged than MPI’s paid virtual access. The paid live streaming had less participation and the majority of the people tweeting were on location at the event with a few people tweeting while watching the live streaming. Even more interesting was that WEC had a steady stream of tweets from people who were not onsite and wanted to know more about what was happening.
So what do you think? Who had the farther reach virtually? Who had the greater ROI (Return on Influence)? What are your observations from these statistics? What does this tell you about free versus paid live streaming from a conference? Which event’s content is more likely to become viral, spread, have more eyeballs seeing it in the future and will continue to live virtually now that the event is passed? Which event’s content could trigger a “World Wide Rave” as author David Meerman Scott calls it?
Yesterday, I looked at the question: Does offering free live streaming of an event cannibalize its face-to-face attendance?
This entire discussion started with these two posts: Should You Make Your Valuable Online Content Totally Free? and Am I The Only One Scratching My Head Going Huh?
Let’s continue the discussion and look at these questions that have arisen due to the debate surrounding MPI’s Virtual Access Pass:
- 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?
Two Different Business Models For Virtual Acess Of Face-To-Face Events
Again, let’s turn to the sports industry for comparisons.
Chris Yates of Huddle Productions left an interesting comment on Chris Brogan’s blog regarding the discussion of “free.” Yates argues that he’s seen two different sports industries go in opposite directions to make money from their content and one succeeded while the other one failed.
The Boxing Industry Live Streams Its Events – Pay Per View Model
Yates says that boxing industry wanted to protect their content so they charged viewers to watch fights on TV (pay per view). After years of doing this, no one wants to pay any more. He further argues that the industry missed a great opportunity to make money from promotions (advertising, logoed products, etc.). He says that killed the industry.
The NFL Live Streams Its Events – Advertising Sponsored, Free To Viewer
On the opposite end, Yates says the NFL is the #1 sports league by a huge margin and that they understand the concept of free. He says they don’t charge for live streaming and people that want to watch the games, can just tune in free. Further, he says the Super Bowls are some of the most watched TV shows in the world, again free.
Yates says that the NFL’s content is so valuable that it brings many eyeballs and companies pay handsomely to advertise during those live streamed events. He argues that great content offered to viewers free has great value and that NFL has a different business model to make money from the event.
Associations have learned the magic formula of advertising-supported free content delivered in their own trade magazines. Most distribute those magazines free to members and nonmembers alike. Yet they have not learned how to transfer this model to live streaming their conferences and events, like the NFL has.
The Verdict: Touchdown Or Knockout
I argue that associations that choose to protect their online content and charge additional fees for virtual attendance are going down the path of the boxing industry and that soon, they will dig themselves a grave. I contend that they must begin to offer outstanding value, remarkable unforgettable face-to-face experiences and free online content to its members in addition to community, networking, government relations and research. If not, they’ll get knockedout or find themselves shadow boxing with fewer and fewer members.
What do you think? What other business models could associations use to support live streaming? And let’s not forget the disruptive business technology of UStream.tv and Qik.com both that offer live streaming of events for free. Any one care to share about their experience using them ?
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.
This week I blogged about the actions of Meetings Professional International (MPI) and their decision to charge $299 for a Virtual Access Pass (VAP) to attend their upcoming conference in Salt Lake, UT. See my initial post and the subsequent post about free online content.
The sticky wicket is the word “free” although I argue that I’ve already paid $375 for dues and MPI should cover any expenses for live streaming from their current budget, especially since they waited until this week, ten days before the event, to announce a fee for VAP. And, since they set a precedent in January 2009 and allowed free virtual attendance to MeetDifferent with access to four conference sessions.
To add a different perspective to this discussion view this short 3-minute video by Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired and author of The Long Tail. His next book, FREE, published by Hyperion is set to be released July 7.
How interesting that this discussion that is occurring right now in the Blogosphere is very similar to the issue taking place at MPI. Some of the biggest names in social media, Web 2.0 and new media are weighing in on the issue of free. The list includes Chris Anderson, Chris Brogan, Mark Cuban, Jason Falls, Malcolm Gladwell, Seth Godin, Mitch Joel, Valeria Maltoni, Tim Sanders, and David Meerman Scott. (BTW, you just caught a glimpse of my daily reading list.)
The biggest difference between the bloggers description of free and MPI’s lack of free content is that as an MPI member, I’ve already paid $375 for annual dues. I’m claiming that I’m not getting $375 worth of services, that I’m not getting enough value for my annual dues. Thus, I want the four sessions from WEC live streamed for free just as they did in January at MeetDifferent. This may seems petty to some but can you really tell me what you get for $375 a year for your MPI dues? It’s very intangible.
Back to the Blogosphere discussion that is taking place by some very smart and brilliant minds today. If they are discussing and applying the concept of free, perhaps we should watch, listen and learn. And with social media, why not jump in and discuss these concepts with them, especially since many of these thought-leaders are willing to engage in dialog with us. (I expect that MPI leadership could take some cues from how these people engage others in conversation too.)
Chris Anderson believes Free, $0.00 is the future of business.
Chris Brogan argues that we can choose to distribute our material and let it loose to the wild and hope to capture value elsewhere or lock our material into containers of perceived value. He says the later model is the way the world has worked for well over a hundred years.
Mark Cuban believes that the content is free but that where it’s distributed is controlled. He offers an example of offering free music only from a specific website.
Jason Falls argues that nothing is really free and advertising and sponsorship sustain perceived free offerings.
Malcolm Gladwell doubts that free is the future. Seth and Chris disagree with him.
Mitch Joel says that free is going to scare people.
Seth Godin says that people will pay for content if it is so unique that people can’t get it elsewhere. He calls Malcolm wrong. Seth Godin even set-up a Squidoo lens to debate the topic right here: The FREE Debate.
Valeria Maltoni believes that free is not a benefit, it’s a feature. She says it doesn’t become a benefit until it’s activated by you in the right place, at the right time.
Tim Sanders believes that amateur content should be free but not well-produced content. I don’t think Tim practices what he preaches. In order not to detract from the flow here, I’ll add my sidebar about Tim’s actions below.
David Meerman Scott believes you’ve got to lose control of your messages and you need to make your valuable online information totally free and freely sharable. He practices what he preaches and offer five free eBooks online.
To be fair, here is MPI’s CEO and President, Bruce MacMillan post The Debate Over “Free.” I don’t think Bruce deserves to be listed with these great thought-leaders because he has no new progressive thoughts about associations. Nor is he a leader that embraces disruptive innovation. He started out that way but now he is comfortable with status quo association offerings. MPI has done nothing in the past two years that qualifies as remarkable or memorable with the exception of offering free live streaming in January.
So what say ye? How do you see free impacting business today? Let’s take it further, how do you see free impacting meetings and events, associations, nonprofits? Do you think MPI’s education content is unique enough to warrant additional fees? Do you think I’m out of line for asking MPI to give me more value for my $375 yearly dues? Do you think the entire conversation of free content is free crap and that I’m just a whining MPI member?
Let’s hear from you. All opinions are welcome here. (If you want to know my personal thoughts about Tim Sanders, read on. If you don’t care about that, add a comment.)
*Oh, and regarding Tim Sanders. I’m going to disagree with Tim that only amateur content should be given away free. (Is he really calling these blogger and authors amateurs? I’m going to assume that Tim does not mean to imply these bloggers and authors are amateurish.) Tim does not practice what he preaches here. I have personal experience that says differently.
Several years ago, I hired Tim to keynote an opening general session for a joint session of PPAI’s BF&M and The Motivation Show. When I was considering potential keynote speakers, Tim reached out to me and sent me a free copy of his book Love Is The Killer App. He also picked up the phone and had a personal conversation with me. He used free—a free book in this case–to get me to buy his product, his speech. Now, I seriously doubt that Tim remembers me because I was just one stop in a yearlong speaking tour for him.
But wait, there’s more. Tim just joined Twitter recently and is trying to build up a list of followers. He tweeted that he would appreciate some recommendations to others about following him. (That there shows his inexperience and understanding of social media.) Well, I had already tweeted about him and did so again the following week because I enjoy his writings and like his insights. He thanked me and asked me to DM him and he would send me a copy of his new book. The oddest thing is that he was not following me so how could I DM him my address. (I just lost all of you that don’t use Twitter. Stay with me.) So I sent him a public reply that I couldn’t DM him because he wasn’t following me. Days later, I sent a second tweet. He never responded again so I don’t think Tim understands the social space very well and I’ve since lost a lot of respect for him. He says one thing and does the other. And he does believe in FREE in order to get people to buy his product.
Don’t forget to add to this discussion.
Have you seen the movie Underworld: The Rise Of The Lycans? I know, it’s one of those cheesy B-grade monster movies about vampires and werewolves. But hey, vampires are trendy right now. The movie traces the origins of the centuries-old blood feud between the aristocratic vampires known as Death Dealers and their onetime slaves, the Lycans. In the movie, the aristocrats live in a walled, gated, ivory tower community while their slaves are imprisoned in dungeons and the slaves relatives are killed if they come near the castle. The Lycans eventually overthrow the Ivory Tower and a new world order emerges.
That’s how I feel about MPI and its members right now. MPI is sitting in its Ivory Tower making arbitrary decisions that impact its members without increasing any value for its current membership. Outside its Ivory Tower, a new public online conversation is emerging. It started softly at first and continues to gain speed and increase. The conversation about MPI, free digital content, and virtual attendance has morphed into discussions about new ways to fund meetings, how associations must enter the social space to begin listening to and engaging with their members, that associations do not have a monopoly on industry content and some are even questioning the association’s value proposition. The world is changing.
The title of this post comes from a quote from Clinton Bonner who participated in a live Twitter chat on MPI’s decision to charge $299 for the Virtual Access Pass to WEC 2009. Clinton said to me, “Their (MPI’s) ‘tower’ they sit in is now just the ground floor. They need to realize horizontal tower MUCH TALLER in reality.” Clinton was saying that today Web 2.0 and social media have leveled the playing field and association members have an equal voice to the once-top-down hierarchy of controlled messaging and branding from companies and organizations.
For the first time in MPI’s history (that I know of), there is public discourse online about MPI, its decisions, its offerings, and its services. The Ivory Tower is being flattened and MPI’s refusal to engage with members in the social space is a clear indication that a change needs to be made in leadership strategy.
Here are some of people’s thoughts and blog posts including two from within MPI’s “Ivory Tower” Fiefdom.
My initial post that started the discussion.
MPI’s Vice President of Knowledge Vicki Hawarden posted that MPI’s VAP in January was a beta and MPI intended to charge at WEC all along.
MPI’s CEO and President, Bruce MacMillian posted The Debate Over “Free” and as expected ignores MPI members’ questions and concerns posted here and in Twitter. It is the traditional top down controlled hierarchy company line post that we have all grown to expect from MPI. Bruce has yet to embrace Web 2.0 principals of conversation online with MPI’s members.
Susan Kuhn Frost argues that it’s the value proposition that threatens “bricks and mortar” associations.
Serenity J. Knutson, Editor in Chief, Plannerwire.com discusses that MPI has issues larger than free online content because they are turning a blind eye to public voiced member concerns. She also states that conflict and disagreements are symptoms of of unmet needs.
Sue Pelletier, MeetingsNet Web editor and editor of Association Meetings magazine states that she hears a lot about people’s dissatisfaction with MPI and what MPI is doing is making it irrelevant to a good chunk of its members.
Don England feels that we should pay for content because of costs associated with delivery.
Mike McCurry ponders if virtual live streaming cannibalizes the face-to-face event.
Julius Solaris states that pricing a virtual event in this price-range looks like a desperate move than educational strategy. He offers ten new business models for events
My follow-up post asking should you make your online content free?
World Wide Rave author David Meerman Scott offers his view that MPI should offer free content.
MPI employee Trevor says MPI stated numerous times the meetdifferent content was free because it was a beta. (I find Trevor’s statement odd since he didn’t start working there until April 2009, according to his Facebook public profile. He was not an employee in January so how would he know that MPI stated it many times.)
Elizabeth asks, “How does a free beta test identify the market for a paid subscription?”
David Lutz’ suggestions on how MPI can take a middle of road approach.
Midori Connolly who offers some great tips on offering a good hybrid meeting experience (and announces she would have sponsored the virtual streaming)
Joan Eistenstodt offers a suggestion on how MPI could engage more non-WEC attending members in the virtual experience.
There are others who have responded too, current members, past members and non-members alike. This is just a few of the comments recently posted. This is certainly a lively discussion that will not end any time soon. So where do you stand? Share your thoughts here.
Recent Comments