Showing posts with label MPI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MPI. Show all posts

Wednesday, 6 August 2014

Simon on: Compelling content

A recent conference session included information from research carried out for MPI a couple of years ago. When asked to identify the most effective elements of a hybrid meeting, planners chose online chats, rebroadcast recorded sessions, online Q&A with speakers and virtual breakout rooms.
Attendees, on the other hand, put compelling content as easily the most important factor.
In itself this difference of opinion may not matter were it not for the fact that, if the MPI figures are right, content was put in a clear first place by attendees while planners reckoned it a poor seventh.
Why was this? Do planners want to boast about having the latest gizmos at their events or have suppliers’ sales people convinced them they can’t survive without this or that technology?
Whatever the reason, planners need to understand that the answer to the question, ‘how do you engage the attendees?’ isn’t ‘use the latest tech’ it’s ‘get the content right’.

Because if the content isn’t right, the sexiest technology in the world isn’t going to save the conference. The attendees will all be sitting with their heads bent over their mobile devices and they won’t be sending tweets about what a great conference they’re at.
Originally published in Conference News

Sunday, 2 December 2012

Simon on: Interactive presentations

Over recent years there has been a marked growth in the number of people claiming that presentations need more interaction. The latest voice in the clamour is Meeting Professionals International (MPI) which has published a series of papers looking at the future of meetings. One deals with content. Among other things it says ‘Shorten content and add lots of interaction…’.
A few days before reading this, I sat through several presentations. Some were good but some were delivered by incompetent presenters with appallingly bad PowerPoint material. The idea that those sessions could be made compelling by adding ‘lots of interaction’ is obviously misguided. All we would have would be sessions delivered by incompetent presenters with appallingly bad PowerPoint material and badly executed interaction.

No technology in the world will make a poor presenter look good and their sessions won’t suddenly become riveting by the inclusion of interaction. They have to be shown how to do the job properly. Only when they have become competent presenters should anybody even think about teaching them how to incorporate interaction.
Originally published in Conference News