Dump the six-month content lag?
That’s what the good folks over at We Have Always Done It That Way are proposing: That meeting organizers shouldn’t line up all their sessions six months before the conference, but just let the topics to be covered bubble up from the attendees on-site, and let the attendees be your speakers (a relatively new concept called the unconference). While I think this would work for some, mostly small, conferences, I can’t see it happening for a major scientific convention, or other types of meetings where people do want to hear the latest breakthroughs from those who do the breaking-through.
But I agree that it’s nearly impossible to determine what’ll be hot in six months, in most cases. In the interest of compromise, here’s the thought I posted over in their comments: Another possibility would be to put out a beta version of the program with topics you think will be of interest six months out, and let potential attendees, speakers, etc., comment and update the topics up until the day of the conference. That way, you can have a plan in place and still ensure that the content will be fresh and interesting, and speakers can target the information much more effectively. While I love the unconference thing, I donât think many associations would be comfortable in taking that big a leap.
While, as David Gammel points out, this could backfire if your speakers aren’t willing to listen and adapt accordingly, frankly, any speaker who wouldn’t want to be as relevant and interesting to my specific group as possible wouldn’t have a place on my program.
P.S. Anyone interested in making associations more relevant should check out We Have Always Done It That Way, and the book the authors are co-writing (and making available pre-publication in draft form to get just this type of feedback). Thanks to Ben for the pointer.
Related Topics: In my opinion, Meetings and conventions
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:26 pm
To be fair, I advocated *adapting* the unconference model to association programs. That could look like anything from your idea to running an untrack along side traditional to content, to who knows what. I think the important idea is that members can be involved in helping to develop an event in many ways other than sitting on a committee that meets once 6 months before the event or filling a traditional speaker slot.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply any rigidity on your part! You and your colleagues are nothing if not into exploration, and I’m loving watching you do it. I’m really interested in seeing all the different ways people can come up with to get members involved in new and more productive ways, too. Running an unconference track is a great way to to ease people into giving up a little control without it being too freaky, and probably would be more comfortable than what I suggested.
If anyone else has ideas, I’d love to hear them.
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