I ran a conference last year which bought together the private and public sectors and social enterprise, charities and entrepreneurs. The way we formed the conference was to have a theme of innovation and collaboration. We also marketed as a different type of conference, where there would be no PowerPoint presentations and that the conference agenda would be made up by the participants through such tools as Open Space and World Cafe. What this allowed us to do was to have very open style sessions, which inspired creativity and led to collaborations that you wouldn’t necessarily have in normal conferences.

My viewpoint on this is to provide different media for connections to be made before hand through social media and video. Getting the issues on the table before a conference through an open forum such as a facebook blog or twitter can help you and the participants create community before, during and ultimately after the event.

Having innovative and creative ways to create better conversations, better collaborations and for participants to walk away with an experiential flavour will win the day and not the typical ‘being talked at methods’.

Hope this helps, if you need any other help please let me know.

All the best,
Samir

Thanks for this great information, and for your helpful website. I think this model would be a great format for an event. Can you point me to any “for profit” conference events that are following this model? Also, do you know of anyone who uses a mixed format of open space and traditional conference content?

Regards, Bill

Good to have you back blogging again. Interesting write up about event co-location. I was actually part of an events team which basically created many of the ideas that are still be used or just now being used in the events industry – two of note were segmentation and co-location. Segmentation is nothing more than grouping companies in their specific industry niche within an event. At COMDEX back in the late 90’s when the show complaints about being too big were becoming too common we split the show floor into different technology segments and we were back then the first to do this. We were strategic about the technology segments or(or themes we would call them) that we choose and went with what was hot in the IT marketplace for that show cycle. I remember when IT security started to get real hot (like it still is) and shows like RSA Security were just a company and not the leading security event we had the entire North Hall of the LVCC labeled under the security and it worked out great. Seperate exhibit areas, seperate conference program – a basically a targeted and focuses approach within a huge general IT event.

You mention co-location which in my opinion is segmentation for the event managment companies but usually has no benefit for the attendee – it is same concept being strected to the point of event management companies just looking to run two events with the operational costs of 1 or 1 1/2 events but in many instances it does not make sense further than that.

As you know many of those decisions have been made to help struggling events or declining events generate more profit by reducing costs and co-locating with other events (usually owned by the same company)in the same venue.

That is for now as again I go into a long winded response.

I think the thing that virtual technology is best suited for is training. Using a platform that combines video and audio components, as well as monitoring technology provides a solution that has been proven to be even better than F2F. The success draws from making sure the attendees are actually watching the training by monitoring their participation. Its superiority comes from the ability for the participant to return to the training and review at a later time, which is impossible with a traditional F2F meeting. The only review material you would usually get is a binder, which costs too much to make, wastes environmental resources, and that will in the end, probably be misplaced or thrown out.

Virtual training is the next big thing in business because it is cost effective, flexible, easy to use, fast, and better for the environment than traditional face to face meetings. And once you find a company that can meet the criteria for a successful virtual platform, you will immediately see the benefits of this cutting edge technology.

- Ashley Claire
UniversalProcon

The use of games and entertainment on a new platform is an indicator that the platform will later be used for non-gaming uses. One of the reasons for this is that people need at least several hours of experience with a new platform, and games give them the motivation to deal with the frustration of learning how to use a new tool.

As the number of people with Second Life accounts grows, it will be easier to to find a significant audience inside Second Life who will attend events there.

Until their subscribers grows to that level, we are looking at how to deliver orientation and training to new users on how to use Second Life so we can hold events using that platform.

I will try to respond to your post as tactfully as possible.

You said that I downplayed the innovative nature of the product. I did not. I stated that Ziff themselves are not the innovators. That technology platform exists for anyone that wants it. Ziff does not own the platform. In fact, I have sold Ziff Davis online event platforms so I know everything about what they are doing. And I sold the same application to other companies before them. Thank you for your reccomendation to attend thier next live event but I have already attended years worth of them and am exceedingly more qualified than you to pass judgements and run a company that produces virtual events.

I have been on the live events webcast engineering side of the equation from day – early 1999. My technical successes have come from being an events producer out of Los Angeles and the Hollywood scene, who knows marketing, sponsorship and promotion. So I get it as far as what goes into it all from all angles. But what normally is hard to control is what webcasters are charging for the webcast streaming services, combined with traditional video and audio production services. It all adds up to a lot of expense the way that normal business is done. Plus, there have been lots of production horror stories told to me by my Fortune 5000 clients before I came on the scene for them. Webcasting is a very complex production expertise, you really need to know what you are doing.

The major webcasters that have all the right tools for reporting and tracking, and syncing of slide presentations, can’t cater to the small to medium business with limited budgets under $5000, for a soup to nuts kind of event webcast offering.

That is not to say that it can be done for less, it just the “Industry” with lots of overhead can’t survive on the existing volume, and the high touch that most webcasters have to put out to be successful.

I’d love to be a part of your ongoing discussion on this topic. I can both provide answers to why thing are he way they are. I can also offer up how it can be done better and more affordably as new solutions provider come on the scene. Including of course what my group can now bring to the table for local business in the San Francisco / Silicon Valley area.

Harvey Louie – EventCG.com

..