Why aren’t meeting industry association meetings the best of the best?
I know, I’ve whined about this one before, but really, why aren’t meetings put on by the meeting industry associations not the ultimate in showcasing the best adult education techniques, the hottest in F&B trends, the coolest technology, etc.? I didn’t attend Meetings Professionals International this week, but I’ve heard from several people that some of the educational sessions were so-so, the food and beverage extremely uneven from meal to meal, and the entertainment, well, let’s just say the gray naked ladies (supposed to be statues come to life at a reception) weren’t a big hit with most of those I’ve been hearing from. Not to mention the giraffes at the reception, which really upset some of the more animal-loving attendees. About keynoter Amanda Gore, some loved her, some hated her, according to the feedback I’ve heard.
While of course you never can please everyone—and planners are notoriously critical—I would rather hear people raving about the way the room set really enhanced the breakouts, the interactive formats that left them begging for more, and the educational takeaways they plan to put into use this week.
Which is why I at first got pretty excited about PCMA’s new Meeting Xperiments (though, note to PCMA, we’re all over that “X” thing by now–it no longer looks cool, just sort of tired. And it probably got a lot of your e-mails bounced back now that most spam-detectors look at anything X with a jaunticed eye). The idea is to ask potential attendees for cutting-edge ideas they’ve always wanted to try but couldn’t in their own meetings. Those that make the cut will be incorporated into PCMA’s 2006 Annual Meeting in January, attendees can evaluate them as they go, and PCMA will share the results afterward.
OK, but how does that work in reality? Will speakers be asked to use room sets that may not work for their session, or technology that doesn’t jive with their topic?
Seems to me this is a bit backwards–PCMA should be coming up with the latest and greatest, planning carefully from every aspect to make sure it’s the best for each specific session, using the latest technical gizmo with people who know how to use it effectively (there’s an art to using something as simple as an audience response system), etc., etc. I realize that it’s a good way to involve the membership in the meeting, and to create anticipation for what may be a great success or a great disaster—or more likely, something in between. Maybe it’s not too late for PCMA to really work to implement the ideas people send in effectively, but if it’s done in a haphazard “Xperimental” way, it’ll only further convince people that it’s better to stick with the tried-and-true than try something new. I know whereof I speak, having done it myself recently.
PCMA, if I’m missing something, please let me know.
Update: At our editorial meeting today, a colleague who attended MPI said it was, and I quote, “the best MPI conference ever.” Despite the griping I’ve heard about f&b, etc., she said it had an amazing spirit to it, one that she hadn’t felt in a long time at any industry meeting. So they must have done a lot of something right, because she’s been going to these things for eons and is not all that easy to impress. And she absolutely adored Amanda Gore.
July 15th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
On the technology aspect of this:
I think a lot of these new collaborative technology tools (blogs, wiki’s, backchanneling, electronic social networking, etc.) are still finding their best place in meetings, or still finding the kind of meeting that best plays to their strengths. I think wiki’s and blogs are much more effective as planning, marketing and assessment tools than on-board vehicles during the actual meeting, for example. Backchanneling looks like a great tool to enhance and deepen discussion, but it also is incredibly distracting. For any of these tools though, it might be hard to showcase them to their best advantage when what that is exactly is not clear yet.
What seems to be the key thread among all the folks (that I read anyway)who are using these tools in and out of meetings (and writing about it,)is an intense thirst for discussion and a desire to minimize the one way direction of most conference sessions. Maybe that should be a topic for Xperimental Meetings too…
July 20th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Don’t get me started. I even wrote my column for The Meeting Professional last year about how tame the technology was at the WEC (somewhat surprised they let me do that).
We should be showcasing the best of the best, but sadly, I think some of our associations actually think they are.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:21 am
The PEC-Europe turned out to be a pleasure with its 500 attendees. Due to the unforseen tragedy of the death of Prince Ranier, entertainment had to be toned down. As a result, we were able to network, talk in normal tones, find the food and actually meet and network with new people. MPI (to their credit) now average over 3000 people and it is a challenge to meet, feed and entertain so many at once. I think it would be better to have less speakers of a higher caliber rather than cram so many speakers concurrently.
Leave a Comment
Advertisement
Subscribe to Face2Face
To receive a daily e-mail digest of face2face posts:
Contact Sue
Recent Posts
Calendar
Categories
Archives
Your Account