The Meat and Potatoes
Web Conferences Are Sooo Web 1.0
Like most people that are passionate about the web industry, I try to attend as many conferences as I can throughout the year. But lately I’ve been questioning the format of the conferences, and wonder if we could do better. Being that I stay current with the community and the web in general, its very rare that I learn anything new. There are of course exceptions, but for the most part web conferences are not geared towards an advanced audience.
Any industry veteran will tell you that the real value of conferences are the relationships that form and more importantly, the conversations and discussions that take place. The very basis of Web 2.0 is the transformation from a broadcast “4th wall” approach, to one based on two-way discussion. So why are our conferences built around the former structure? Why not restructure in a way that fosters more discussion? Sure, there are usually Q&A sessions after a panel, but this is hardly conducive to real conversation.
This year I attended FOWD (Carsonified). And while I enjoyed the first day’s presentation, the real value was in the workshops. Smaller audience, less formal, open format, and bilateral discussion. I also attended Community Next (Noah Kagan) and experienced a similar situation. The VIP dinner was by far more valuable than the conference itself. This is where I had the chance to really pick the brains of the speakers and extract the information that was most relevant to me. Furthermore, relationships were formed that will have lasting value for many years into the future.
I don’t pretend to know the first thing about organizing a web conference, but from a attendee perspective here’s what I’d love to see:
- Smaller groups of 20-30 people per speaker
- Have a loose agenda and let attendees decide the topics
- Rotating round table dinners with assigned seating (break up the cliques and officemates, maximize connections)
- More tangible hands-on examples of topics discussed in general, and how they relate to attendees projects
You’re describing portions of an unconference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference
Yea, BarCamp is great example. It would be nice to see something in between a BarCamp and a standard format conference. Something with the intimacy and openness of BarCamp, combined with a slightly more structured agenda and some high profile speakers/presenters.
So, I recently did a workshop, fourth time, but I dramatically altered the content to do exactly what you describe in the last three bullet points (attendance was still around 80). Surprisingly, it was poorly received, the worst of the four I’ve done.
It seems, regrettably, at least from this experience, that people pay lots of money to attend a conference specifically to have someone tell them precisely what to do. The feedback I received confirmed this, with several stating they didn’t want to do exercises, determine the agenda, etc. They merely wanted to hear me speak what I prepared to speak.
Interesting. I could see there being people that want to lurk rather than get involved for whatever reason. Maybe they’re shy, or even insecure about their level of expertise. Seems that every conference I attend, I always meet at least one person who is a bit out of their comfort zone…maybe their company sent them, or they just don’t feel confident in their abilities in general. I could definitely see them wanting stay in the shadows.
It’s really about personal preference.
Cameron, I wonder how your experience correlates to the audience and how familiar they were with the topic you discussed? I’d imagine those who are new to the topic probably don’t care much for an open discussion format. Whereas those who have more experience with the topic, probably are more open to it.
Sorta like a book club… if you’ve read the book, discussion is great. But if you haven’t, it’s not going to be as interesting.