Tag-Archive for » WEC «
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?
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.
Many in the meetings and events industry and association world know of my thoughts and concerns about MPI’s recent decision to charge for virtual attendance to their upcoming World Education Congress 2009, a departure from their free virtual attendance at “MeetDifferent 2009” conference in January. I’ve turned from MPI member evangelist to MPI member critic overnight.
My unscientific, biased Twtpoll shows that at least 68 people were going to purchase MPI’s virtual access pass which at $299 each comes to more than $20,000 to MPI’s revenues. [I'm sure MPI is happy about adding this to their bottom line.] That same unscientific biased poll shows that nearly 80% of 411 votes disagree with MPI’s decision.
Some of you agree with me. Some publicly and some of you have sent private direct messages to me in agreement afraid to publicly post your views for fear of retaliation. Some of you disagree with me. MPI leaders and board remain silent with the exception of Jeff Busch, VP of Strategic Communications who has sent tweets to me. I’ll be honest that my tweets to him have been curt and blunt, it is limited to 140 characters.
Regardless, the one sticking point is the word “free.” Everyone, including, MPI, agrees that they should be live streaming their event and offering online content. That’s a huge improvement from a year ago at this time. The disagreement arises when we discuss how and who will pay for it and whether it should be free. I argue that the costs are less then they say, especially if they were to use UStream or Qik. But they’ve chosen to use a supplier who I’m sure is insisting on splitting some of the revenue with them.
Interestingly enough, while this conversation was occurring, Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) was streaming specific sessions from their 2009 annual conference online free for anyone to see. They’ve even provided 5 Ways To Particiapte In SHRM 2009 From The Office free! Interesting how the HR professional industry understood the gravity of this issue and the need to provide value for its members and the industry.
This is not a new discussion nor is it going away anytime soon. Newspapers and magazines are facing these same issues, some of which refrused to adapt and have since folded. Any content provider will have to deal with this issue of free content at some point in the future, or they will be left in the dust.
To further the discussion, I offer two perspectives from leading social media explorers: Seth Godin and David Meerman Scott. Read for yourself their views.
In Seth Godin’s June 30, blog post Malcolm Is Wrong, regarding free he writes:
The first argument that makes no sense is, “should we want free to be the future?”
Who cares if we want it? It is.
The second argument that makes no sense is, “how will this new business model support the world as we know it today?”
Who cares if it does? It is. It’s happening.”
He proceeds by stating: “People will pay for content if it is so unique they can’t get it anywhere else, so fast they benefit from getting it before anyone else, or so related to their tribe that paying for it brings them closer to other people. [No association holds a monopoly on such unique content that all members will pay for it!]…
Like all dying industries, the old perfect businesses will whine, criticize, demonize and most of all, lobby for relief. It won’t work. The big reason is simple:
In a world of free, everyone can play.”
Likewise, David Meerman Scott identifies the Six Rules Of the Rave in his book the World Wide Rave. Regarding two rules, he writes
Rule 2. No coercion required.
For decades, organizations of all kinds have spent bucketfuls of money on advertising designed to coerce people into buying products: Free shipping! This week only, 20% off! …[Purchase now and apply $100 discount to your attendance at a 2010 conference.] this product-centric advertising is not how you get people talking about you. When you’ve got something worth sharing, people will share it-no coercion required.
Rule 3. Lose control.
…You’ve got to lose control of your messages; you need to make your valuable online information totally free (and freely sharable); …
David proceeds to layout multiple examples of businesses and organizations that give away online free content which leads to success and purchases. He also tells his own story of how his publisher Wiley encourages him to give away content from his book World Wide Rave and how they’ve shown that it leads to people purchasing his books.
So, I ask again, why should I as a member that pays $375 for my membership dues, pay $299 for online content. All I want to see free, is similar to what MPI offered in January, the opening general session and power keynotes.
What do you think about Godin and Scott’s view of free online content? How do you think SHRM’s members responded to their willingness to offer five ways to attend their annual conference free?
Tuesday, I received an email from Meeting Professionals International (MPI), an association of 24,000 meeting and event professionals regarding their upcoming conference WEC (World Education Congress) July 11-14, 2009. The email surprised me as they were offering me a special discount for virtual attendance of $299 for full access to 17 live streaming events. I would also have access to the recordings (video, audio and some synched PPT & audio) to more than 100 education sessions and access to the social conference network from Pathable.
Well, after my mouth fell the floor, I read the email again and thought, surely they jest. Then I thought, oh my, their attendance is down and they are trying to meet budget. They are hurting financially and are doing anything and everything to make money.
Then I thought, “What hair-brained staff member put this in place?” Yes, it was a corporate hairball in action with a decsion made my some executive jerk (joke?) who pulled rank, and clearly wasn’t focused on what’s best for members or providing value to members who couldn’t afford to attend in person. It was probably someone who doesn’t understand the social space and has the scarcity mentality that thinks all non-attendees will willingly cough-up $300 for a virtual attendance. Or they’ve got some supplier who was not smart enough to sponsor free virtual attendance for anyone who could not attend face to face.
Did MPI think this through? Did they honestly think members who were not attending were going to jump up and down with glee that we had the opportunity to pay another $300 for content? Did they think about how upset some of us might be? Obviously, not. Nor did they realize the power of the social space to show that MPI does not control it’s brand anymore.
What struck me as odd was this was the opposite of what MPI did in January 2009 for their “MeetDifferent” conference in Atlanta. Then they streamed the opening general session and other power keynotes and allowed me to particpate virtually for free. They also posted free video clips of the general sessions for everyone to see. They totally won me over and I was a proud to be a member. I had no problem renewing my $375 membership in the Spring because MPI had proven their worth to me and gave me free content in January. I was honored and willing to shout from the mountain that MPI “got it” and valued me as a member. I was willing to encourage others to become a member and became their customer evangelist. Heck, I was even willing to give up a Saturday to speak to MPI’s CLC 2009 about social media strategy. So, I’ve not been an outspoken critic of MPI in the past rather a MPI evangelist.
You see, earlier this year, I was disappointed that I couldn’t attend MPI’s WEC face to face because my 2009 travel and professional development budget was slashed. I didn’t have any money to attend, nor do I have $300 to pay to attend virtually. Nor do I think it’s worth $300 for virtual attendance. I think it ludicrous.
Then I got mad, very mad. I pay $375 a year for membership and what do I get in return? Very little. We’ll save that for tomorrow’s post. And yes, there will be more.
What’s so sad, is that in one act, MPI has turned me from customer evangelist into an outspoken member critic. And if they think I’m going to keep quiet, they are wrong. I’m sure they think I will just go away but my membership goes through almost another year. You see, I’ve already received more than 25 direct messages in Twitter from others who are outraged at MPI’s stance. And I suspect others to speak out too. Has MPI even had to deal with bloggers yet who disagree with them? Doubtful. I expect they think they can ignore me and I will go away.
So I ask you, am I the only one that thinks MPI is going down the wrong path here? Am I the only one that thinks MPI sent a message loud and clear to me that they only value my membership enough if I pay them another $300 to receive content? Am I the only one scratching my head going, ”Huh?”
Let them know how you feel. Post a comment here and tell them what you think.
Oh, and by the way, in case you think I’m crazy asking MPI to provide free virtual access to WEC education, see what Seth Godin has to say about free content in today’s world.
For full disclosure, I am a member of MPI and a former 1999 MPI employee. I actually used to plan WEC, PEC and Platinum programs so I’ve walked in those shoes.
Recent Comments