Counterpoint: The Conference Business is Bombproof

Jeff Jarvis had a provocative post over the weekend called 'Exploding the Conference Business.' His gist is that the conference business is ripe for a revolution, for a couple of reasons:

1. The objectives of the attendees aren't always aligned with the objectives of the organizers and sponsors (Jarvis points to Dave Winer referring to this as Creeping Commercialism)

2. Too much pulpit-thumping; not enough conversations that engage all the expertise in the room.

He goes on to propose a virtual exchange, where conference producers merely allow for the aggregation of like-minded folks to discuss topics of their choosing, and once an topic has a critical mass of participants, the attendees engage the conference producer to facilitate their show. Almost like a cross between eBay and Mercata for conferences.

It's a visionary concept. Hey, some people really liked News from Nowhere when it came out.

Trouble is, I don't agree with him.

It's impossible to tackle this without first defining what a conference is. To me, a conference is a media vehicle designed to facilitate the exchange two things: 1) education and 2) business opportunity. If its purpose is only (1), it's a seminar or a professional development program. If it's only (2), it's a trade show.

I believe that conferences exist in the way they do not because of any undue pressure on conference organizers by sponsors, but because they fill a market need. If they didn't, Ad:Tech would be shrinking instead of growing, and the conference industry would be constricting instead of expanding.

But different conferences fill different needs - even within the same industry. For example, Shop.org and eTail shows attract largely the same audience of online retail executives. But they have different models and different positions within the industry. Shop.org is viewed as more of a retailer networking show, relatively free of vendor pitches. eTail is perceived as much more vendor-heavy, and pitchy. But retailers still attend it. Why? It's the place you go when you're vendor-shopping.

I do agree with Jarvis that there is a market need for smaller, peer-to-peer exchange events, conducted more like graduate seminars than 101 Lecture classes. But I think this need is a niche, not a revolution. Why? Because even in the blogosphere - the vigilantly protected home of conversations - on any given topic there are far more lurkers than participants. Want proof? Jarvis has some 30+ comments following his conferences post - what small percentage of his readership does that represent? And it will always be that way. There will always be many more people at the beginning of the learning curve (or who believe they are) on any topic than there will be at its peak. Most abandon the curve partway up. More people have questions than answers, and I can tell you from a lot of professional conference experience, most people at conferences with questions expect them to be answered by more knowledgeable people than themselves.

I can tell you also from years of speaker recruitment, the second most common reason for turning down an invitation to speak at a conference (after scheduling conflicts) is because the speaker doesn't feel he or she has enough expertise in the area to present. In most cases this isn't true, but the perception is very real. This is particularly true for topics that are emerging and burgeoning in popularity - which, not coincidentally, are the topics most sought after by attendees.

Look, I know there's a lot that's wrong with some conferences, but I believe strongly that the basic model of experienced professionals sharing their experience with the less experienced will always be functional. It's not an exclusive model, but its place in professional education and networking is secure. And I believe that, as Christopher Locke posits in Cluetrain, if markets are conversations, participation of merchants themselves is required.

But that's not to say it can't and doesn't need to be improved on. That's the very reason I'm writing this blog, and (I'll trow) why you're reading it. So here's what conference producers can learn from the blogosphere:

1. Be open and authentic and honest. Don't try to pass off an exec who is bankrolling your show as an 'editorially-selected speaker.' And don't lead the exec to believe anything otherwise either.

2. Find and follow a deliberate balance of commercial and editorial content. Be clear with everyone on these boundaries.

2a. Create this balance strategically, driven by internal competencies and market positioning.

3. Work in town-hall and other conversational formats when appropriate. (Shop.org has great success with its 'Retailer Roundtables' which are peer discussions on given topics, but they're only a couple of hours over two days - plenty for most attendees.) Be prepared to find these formats more appropriate than you have in the past.

4. Read and respond to all your comments. In whatever form they come in - anecdotally on-site, through feedback forms, via unsolicited direct contact post-show, and (especially) when they occur in blogs and other outlets, and more about you than to you.