Fork In The Road Blog

Events: Technology. Design. Strategy.

A Super Nerdy Way to Think about Growing an Event Community

Chris Heuer of the Social Media Club and a member of the SXSW Badgeless movement closed our recent Twitter conversation about attendees that attend, but don’t pay at SXSW with the following comment:

@michellebruno make it easier for the related communities the event serves to participate, maybe #EPI not #API, Event Programming Interface

Heuer’s tweet made me think about the parallels between organizations in the live event industry and device manufacturers (among others) that use application programming interfaces (API) to grow a community of users—one that can be monetized.

In simple terms, an API is the gateway, tools and implicit permission that hardware manufacturers make available to enable third-party application developers to create products and services around its products. Think about the Apple iPhone and all of the independent companies that develop apps for it. More applications = more reasons for people to own iPhones.

The concept of an API isn’t limited to hardware manufacturers. Oren Michels of API management firm, Mashery, told Mashable that, “Ultimately, the API is a means for growing your business — and I use the term ‘business’ to include whatever your mission is, be it traffic or commerce or a nonprofit improving the world or a government entity serving its constituents — faster and larger by virtue of engaging with others. Understand how and why your API can do that and you will be successful. ”

If what Michels says is true, live event organizers (nonprofit associations and for-profit companies) have to re-think their mission and their modus operandi. In my Twitter exchange with Chris Heuer, we discussed the need for SXSW organizers to find ways to include even the non-paying attendees, especially those like Heuer who have contributed to the wellbeing of the festival by blogging and paying in the past and are legitimate members of the broader interactive community that SXSW aims to serve. If SXSW’s mission is reach and retain a larger community, they will have to develop some type of outreach—not unlike an API—to accomplish that goal.

All face-to-face event organizers share a common mission: to grow revenue opportunities by growing their communities. This goal exists at a time when the live event industry—trade shows and conferences in particular—is under pressure. Event organizers can only access a fraction of the community of potential users. New research indicates that the potential of face-to-face events is limited because total visitor time at events is decreasing. At the same time, corporate budgets are being overtaken by digital marketing expenditures, digital channels can be as productive for the discovery of new product information as face-to-face events and live event participation is fraught with friction for participants.

An API model could be the gateway for live event organizers to expand the revenue, retention and reach of their unique value proposition (UVP), which is NOT, by the way, the ability to bring buyers and sellers together face-to-face. Since the UVP of b-to-b event organizers in the digital age is, I believe, “frictionless customized engagement,” an API from a live event organization should facilitate access to two classes of information and draw two types of net new community members:

On the event level: attendee feedback, demographic information, customer preferences, audit data, organizational challenges, task force findings, sponsor/exhibitor case studies, exhibitor advisory committee discussions and other information allows application developers—mobile, virtual, social and other technology suppliers—to derive solutions. More technology solutions = less friction for event participants = more attendee/exhibitor/sponsor participation.

On the industry level: research (free or low cost), education (free webinars), digital events, data, news, industry challenges, demographics, statistics, thought leadership, think tank discussions, case studies, white papers, content and other information makes it easier for new companies and individuals to offer solutions around it. More solutions = a growing industry = an expanded event community.

Of course, the use of an API-like outreach model requires work. The care and feeding of the solution developers and new community members is no small feat. However, it just makes sense that in the Information Age, live event organizers should use information to improve their events and grow their communities of potential participants.

Is the SXSWi Badgeless Movement A Sign of Things to Come in the Event Industry?

It started with a tweet:

“Connect to #Badgeless2012, FB on.fb.me/xrP9zC and the Web bit.ly/AuxLX”

At first, I thought that “Badgeless” might be referring to a technology that allowed event participants to interact with one another without using the square 3 x 4” piece of paper dangling from a string that we refer to as a badge.

I was wrong. A subsequent Twitter exchange with Chris Heuer, the founder of the global Social Media Club organization and member of the Badgeless Group at SXSWi, revealed so much more:

Badgeless is an organized movement of individuals who choose not to register (or pay the steep cost for a badge) for the annual nerd fest in Austin, Texas. Instead, its members connect via social media to enjoy the many free (and non-sanctioned) activities that have grown up around the main conference and trade show.

Badgeless participants don’t get to see the Al Gore or Ray Kurzweil keynotes (although some buy a one-day-pass), but they do get a lot of free tacos and beer and each other, which is apparently the main attraction for them. Many of them are SXSWi veterans who have been there, done that. Now, they just want to see their friends. Chris Heuer was selling Badgeless T-shirts to raise money for his Social Media Club nonprofit association.

Although the argument can be made that Badgeless members are entitled to draft off the 26-year success that is SXSW, the practice is discomfiting to people that organize events for a living.

Heuer’s rationale for justifying his Badgeless status is that he contributes to the event in other ways by blogging and promoting it, and because, he tweets, “there is a community of people that exists who are #badgeless2012 already.” Plus, “its truly not against anyone, it’s for and about the alternative, ”and “#WorldHasChanged,” he writes.

For some of the non-conformists, it’s about the money. Some Austin locals simply cannot afford to attend. Others, however, have somehow negotiated their airfare, lodging, food (no one can live on free tacos, can they?), local transport and other amenities, but choose not to buy the badge on principle or as one tweeter on the Badgeless2012 hashtag noted, “just to see what it was like.”

Circumventing the “system” is not new. Anyone remember Woodstock (jokes aside) where eventually the burgeoning crowd just broke the fences down and let themselves into the concert? Traci Browne recently wrote very poignantly about suitcasing at the Exhibitor Show in Las Vegas. And, despite conference organizer attempts to “own” the hotels surrounding their events, outboarding inevitably takes place all the time.

So what can event producers learn from the Badgeless movement at SXSWi?

  • For some, walled gardens of information are no longer attractive or worth paying for
  • There is a sense of entitlement (good or bad) among some community members that justifies their activities “outside the tent.”
  • We are vulnerable because people can and will self-organize if we don’t help organize them
  • There are whole groups of folks that aren’t part of our current communities doing interesting things
  • If face-to-face interaction is the best offering we have, that isn’t enough.
  • Our communities are organizing themselves around ideas because we are too lame to be the idea

What can event organizers do?

Acknowledge the dissenting voices. SXSW organizers are aware of Badgeless and other organized groups (there were plenty of companies selling their wares on the streets of Austin that didn’t pay sponsorship fees) and try to reach out to them.

Stop offering commodities. If what event organizers sell becomes something that is predictable, standardized and without differentiation, buyers will either look elsewhere for a less expensive option or seek to create something better on their own.

Let the outsiders in. Create virtual experiences—keynotes projected on a screen, hybrid extensions of live content and a social media outreach—to make people feel like there’s a party going on in the next room. Perhaps next time, they won’t want to miss it.

Provide a variety of ways for attendees to experience the event. There will always be a certain number of attendees who just want to hang out with friends. Others will come to learn. More will want to kick the tires at the trade show. Events must cater to all these groups.

The point is that the world has changed. After the current homogenous group of attendees moves on to retirement, the next demographic slated to fuel the growth of the trade show and conference industry isn’t going to settle for the same old same old. Either event organizers begin innovating now by changing the experience and opening up the doors to new ideas and ways of doing business or they will be on the outside sampling the free tacos and beer.

 

 

 

 

It Takes a (Virtual) Village to Build an Industry

A very interesting discussion in the “Virtual Events and Meeting Technology” group on LinkedIn was recently derailed. The initial question posed by the group administrator was, “Will Virtual Events Ever Really Take Off?” For those of us invested in this topic—vendors, event organizers, journalists and passionate observers—this question is the key to unlocking the resources and momentum necessary to move beyond mere discussion to widespread understanding. It is the kind of question that begs responses from any and all whether they have a horse in the race or a comfortable seat in the stands. Instead, some of the most important voices were admonished or excluded.

After several weeks of contributions to the discussion from mostly vendors, it was revealed that Michael Doyle, the founder of the Virtual Edge Institute (VEI)—a prominent voice in this fledgling industry—has been intentionally excluded from the group. The announcement took the focus off of what was a fantastic dialogue onto who should or should not be allowed into the discussion.

The group owner clearly stated his reasoning for excluding Mr. Doyle in a recent post: “Since VEI is financially supported by vendors, I consider content produced by them to be a form of advertising. There have been of couple of past members who were tied to VEI and only posted links back to VEI. Not in line with my goals for the group. So my question has always been this, if I approve Michael does this forum become just another exposure point for his agenda?”

The group owner’s position on admitting Michael Doyle or excluding persons affiliated with VEI is self-defeating. If, as he admits, live event producers have not yet embraced the virtual models, who is available to participate in the discussion if not vendors and thought leaders like Doyle? At least Doyle has street cred for having moved the needle on a class of technology that is helping to bring our old school industry into alignment with the rest of the business world.

I can well appreciate the group owner’s interest in protecting the integrity of the discussion. I will be the first to admit that the cacophony of advertising and digital stimulation eating my brain cells has my cognitive shield on red alert. Yet, with an industry in its infancy, there have to be exceptions made in the interests of the community at large. If, in exchange for valuable contributions, the community has to accept the bias, motivations, and sometimes “commercial” references (in the opinions of some) that come along with them, isn’t that a fair exchange?

There is an important place for moderation in a group. Ad hominem attacks and blatant commercialism without any added value to the discussion does not advance the cause and a third party presence to normalize the discussion is very helpful. But, if we have learned anything by choosing to have our discussions on public social media platforms such as LinkedIn, it’s that the community takes care of itself—they either voice their opinions loudly (recent developments in the political/public space prove that point unequivocally) or they move on to forums where the discussion is more fruitful and open.

There is a responsibility on the part of the group owner as well as the group participants to move the discussion forward. Using one’s affiliation or the behaviors of those seen as sympathizers to his or her cause as a reason for exclusion seems a little short sighted. That said. The onus is also on the participants of a group to check the commercialism at the door, lest they be “wailed upon” by the community or the moderator and to apply the same openness to their own groups, discussions and endeavors elsewhere as a sign of their genuine intention to contribute to the greater goal of the community. Should we be drawing lines in the sand before there is actually a beach?

 

 

 

 

 

The Attendee Hierarchy of Needs: A Framework for Making Better Event Planning Decisions

What if there were a framework for making great decisions about features, programming, and technology for events? I’ve been thinking about it for a while—especially since my TSNN blog post on an attendee’s technology wish list. Since then, I’ve done two Webinars for TSNN on just such a framework.  Here are the details.

I was thinking a lot about what makes people really want/crave/anticipate live events. Yes, it’s the networking and the opportunity for education, the oft-cited reasons given by event organizers. But, I felt there was more to it than that. After all, we can network and get information online.

I’ve always been fascinated by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. According to Maslow’s theory, humans must fulfill various levels of needs (beginning with breathing, eating, and excreting) before moving to the next higher levels including safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. The familiar multicolored triangle often associated with Maslow’s theory represents the various aspects of a fully actualized, satisfied, and motivated individual.

I adapted this idea and developed an Attendee Hierarchy of Needs to illustrate what face-to-face event attendees need to fully experience a live event. What I discovered is that the framework also works great for understanding virtual attendees, international attendees, and other attendee groups that event organizers know particularly well. In my theory, there are also five levels:

Utility—the basic tools needed to navigate and participate in the event including food and beverage, registration, signage, charging stations, Wi-Fi, maps, transportation, exhibitor directories, conference agendas, floor plans, or ADA accommodations. If you make it simple for attendees to experience your event by choosing technologies and features that open the doors to exhibitors, directions, schedules, and what’s on at the moment, they will want to attend AGAIN.

Justification—the information needed to justify the ROI of time and resources expended to attend the show including QR codes, digital tote bags, session speakers, programming, show features, content capture devices, and post-show content access. If you make it easy (mainly through digital takeaways) for attendees to report back to the boss and feel as if they walked away with important, tangible information, they will want to attend AGAIN.

Connection—the human and digital connection needed to communicate and share the experience with others through such channels as matchmaking applications, social media, sporting events (golf tournaments, fun runs, etc.), alternative conference architectures (unconferences, Conferences that Work, etc.) and games (trivia, SCVNGR hunts, opportunities to win badges). These offerings deepen relationships between attendees and other attendees; and attendees and exhibitors. If you make these opportunities available, attendees will feel more fulfilled and they will want to attend AGAIN.

Recognition—the opportunities needed to express opinions and participate in discussions through Q & A sessions, Twitter falls, text walls, polling, soapboxes, opinion corners, leaderboards, crowdsourcing, collaboration platforms, and idea booths. Attendees want to be heard and recognized. When you give them that opportunity, they will want to attend AGAIN.

Understanding—the need to be transformed through higher-level learning and engagement using such tools as motivational speakers, charity events, or mentoring programs. Attendees come to events with a lot more emotional baggage than before.  They want to leave with inspiration, a transformational experience, or food for thought about improving their lives.  This is not about business. It’s about self. If you give them something that changes their lives, they will definitely want to attend AGAIN.

The Takeaway:  The Attendee Hierarchy of Needs concept incorporates a holistic approach. If you select programming, event features, and technology that fulfills attendees’ needs at each level (technology such as mobile could compete at several levels simultaneously), they will feel as if they have fully experienced your event and it will motivate them to return year after year.

Of course, using the Hierarchy requires that you take action to understand what the needs of your attendees are by using all of the demographic, preference, and behavior tools at your disposal. Then, meet those needs as amply and deeply as you can. It’s classic Business 101: understand customer needs and meet them.

To use the Hierarchy to its fullest potential, you need to expand your thinking in two ways: expand your notion of the “attendee” to include live attendees, virtual attendees, and every flavor of attendee vertical; and broaden your definition of “experience” to encompass the engagement (between the organizer and the attendee) that occurs well before the event and lasts long after. Then, use the framework as a lens through which to see your event and make decisions in the best interests of your customers.

 

 

 

Why PCMA’s Investment in the Virtual Edge Institute Means More than Just Cash

In case you missed it last week, a joint press conference featuring Deborah Sexton and Susan Katz of the Professional Convention Management Association (PCMA) and Michael Doyle of Virtual Edge Institute (VEI) revealed that PCMA will be making a monetary investment (the amount was undisclosed) in VEI. The announcement is significant and it’s NOT about the cash.

Obviously, a little more coin in the till will help VEI reach its objectives sooner. It looked as if the two groups were heading towards some kind of relationship from their two-time co-location (Last year in Las Vegas and this January in San Diego) and Deborah Sexton’s unflagging support of virtual and hybrid events. But there’s more to it than a budding “vromance” (virtual + romance).

What PCMA has done is such a refreshing departure for an association. In the past, when associations became enamored with a technology or wanted to appease their members’ curiosity, they would invite providers to offer the solution (free of charge, of course) during the annual conference or trade show. Unfortunately, the revolving door of providers year after year scotched any chance for the users or the providers to achieve widespread adoption.

In other cases, associations have used the technology themselves—a sort of eat your own members’ dog food approach—but when the execution failed or the technology became obsolete, the organization ended up with egg on their face and forever after took the low (tech) road.

What PCMA is doing differs from the other approaches in a number of ways. Instead of hooking up with a particular vendor, they have come out in support of a technology. Smart, because it reduces their risk as an association and brilliant, because it is open source innovation at its best.

Under open source models, the “source code” is made available to the community enabling them to produce new products, applications, and uses from the original product. PCMA, with its investment and endorsement of VEI, is helping to unlock the innovation around virtual and hybrid event technology by, in effect, making the research, discussion and experimentation (the source code of a budding technology) available for the entire event industry.

Regardless of where you stand in the “value of trade associations” debate, one thing member-based organizations have been only marginally successful at is helping members get new business—really helping, not just putting buyers and sellers together in the same room or “allowing” suppliers to sponsor activities in exchange for access to planners. The precedent that PCMA is setting is crazy good.

PCMA’s investment in virtual event research and education through VEI can build the trade show and conference industry, help us to transition to digital—not by abandoning face-to-face (obviously), but by figuring out how to blend the old and the new together—create jobs, and accelerate innovation. I can’t wait to see what they do next.

The takeaway: Well done PCMA.

Be Notified of New Posts via Email