Admit it, we’ve all done it. In fact, it’s probably the norm more than the exception.
What am I referring to? Attending an online event, minimizing the browser window it’s playing in, and carrying on with other work while a speaker delivers their wisdom to an audience with very divided attention.
This isn’t ideal. The whole point of participating in an event is to engage and learn. Unfortunately, many online events just aren’t producing the level of engagement they want to.
I’ve had the chance to attend a wide range of online events. I’ve been part of planning groups for online events. I’ve also been talking to a lot of business leaders who’ve shared their experiences, good and bad, from their own online events. And from all this, I thought a little math might be helpful.
Here’s the formula I created:
[(Offline) .4C+.4N+.2D]=[(Online) .8C+.2N+0D]
Huh?
Let’s look at why I attend an event in the first place. I imagine it’s probably fairly representative of why others do as well.
In my mind, there are three main reasons why I attend an offline (in-person) industry event:
- The quality of the content and presentations. Let’s say this delivers 40 per cent of the value I get from an in-person event;
- The networking opportunities, both with those people that I expect to see and the unexpected encounters that are always a part of industry get-togethers. Let’s say this delivers another 40 per cent of the value I get from being there;
- And the chance to visit a nice destination and have a break from the day to day. Let’s attribute 20 per cent of an event’s value to this last one.
To me, this breakdown illustrates both the challenge and the opportunity for online events.
Online events are going to be challenged to deliver against point 2 — the networking opportunities. Online event platforms and technologies have taken a variety of approaches to this, some of which are really creative. But even the most creative probably won’t deliver the same value (for me anyway) of in-person encounters. And clearly the destination value is not there at all.
How does this revise my math? As the second half of the goofy equation shows, I think it looks like this:
- The chance to get away to a nice destination simply doesn’t figure into an online event, so that slice of the pie falls to zero per cent;
- For me, the networking aspect of an online event, even one using digital native tools, is less than for an offline event. So I’m going to allocate 20 per cent of the value of an online event to networking, assuming it’s done well online;
- This means the content needs to carry far more of the load for an online event than it does for an offline event. By my simple math, I need to get 80 per cent of the value I get from an event just from the quality and intrusiveness of the speakers and their presentations. That is a BIG difference from an offline event!
What’s the lesson here? Event organizers need to think very carefully about the content line-up they’re putting together, because it has to work much harder online than it did in person. Organizers need to think pragmatically about whether their line-up is going to be strong enough to draw and hold the same audience that usually comes to the offline event.
I realize this formula is simplistic. Actually, that’s the point of it. I also realize not everyone will agree with how I allocate value to attending an event. That’s fine too.
What is my real goal with this? To pull simplicity out of complexity.
There are lots of event platforms and apps to choose from. There are questions around scheduling, sponsorship, duration of sessions online versus what we’re used to offline, pricing, and far more. I don’t want to be flippant in suggesting there isn’t complexity that needs to be considered.
However, my little formula suggests that unless an event’s content line-up is really, really strong (much stronger in fact than it needed to be for an in-person event to be a success), then getting the rest right probably won’t be nearly enough.
