Survey: What makes a conference worth attending?
Chief Marketer’s survey on what makes a meeting worth going to is out. The results aren’t too surprising:
- Seventy-four percent of respondents flagged networking opportunities as “extremely” or “very” important, and 70% said that the experience level of their fellow attendees really mattered as well. More than four-fifths (83%) felt that the reputation of the conference presenter made a big difference in their decision and satisfaction; a full two-thirds cited “exhibit hall expectations” as important, with 7% citing them as “extremely” important. In contrast, just 14% felt that entertainment mattered.
Yeah, but if the entertainment isn’t good, I’m sure the meeting planner would hear about it! (Read Kevin’s post about the importance of grabbing people in the first 10 minutes for more.) And, while I doubt they asked in the survey, the food better be pretty good, too.
- On to the comments. When asked “What is the one critical element or characteristic that must be present in any conference you attend, that influences your decision on attending the same event next year?” respondents emphasized the importance of being able to walk away with actionable–and preferably cutting-edge–suggestions. To wit:
⢠“Pertinent, practical, relevant to my job and my day-to-day challenges.”
⢠“I must be able to learn one new thing. Usually, this means I have met other professionals from whom I learn. They can be presenters, exhibitors, or other attendees. If I get all three, it’s a winner.”
⢠“Cutting-edge topics and innovative ideas, challenges, solutions–that’s what brings me back.”
August 23rd, 2005 at 5:56 pm
Your post here and your link to Kevin’s post at the Association blog have got my mind racing on a subject that I have wrestled with for a good portion of my life - what makes a meeting/conference worth attending?
Would it be helpful to create a difference between “amusement” and “entertainment”? Amusement - is mindless and non-inspiring (without a muse) while entertainment is designed to create attentiveness to what which is important and relevant.
I know that events have to speak to the entire person. Not an easy challenge. Great meetings like great speakers can build on what the ancient Greeks knew about pursuasion.
You need a wise combination of . . .
Logos - a well-reasoned path, clearly outlined that promises relevance. Give me at least one practical take away!
Ethos - ethical credibility in the eyes of your attendees (this is maybe the point some have made about the expense of some opening 10 minutes - ethos is lost due to the extravagance.)
Pathos - emotional connection with the attendees that says you understand them. In other words - empathy.
My view is that these traits within the first ten minutes of a conference are not rolled out in some kind of linear fashion but happen all at the same time. And this is where great meeting planners and planning teams display their wisdom … or not.
August 24th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Michael,
You make some terrific points–have we really been wrestling with this since the Ancient Greeks first took it on? But you hit the three main components perfectly, IMHO.
Sue
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