Christopher S. Penn – Marketing AI Keynote Speaker

Why pro conferences are different than PodCamps and why neither is better

—

by

Christopher S Penn
in ,
Warning: this content is older than 365 days. It may be out of date and no longer relevant.
Company logoImage via Wikipedia

Why pro conferences are different than PodCamps and why neither is better

Some interesting discussion this morning on the differences between PodCamps and pro conferences like the Affiliate Summit, which I’m speaking at on a panel on Tuesday, August 12. A difference to highlight, from the registration page of the Affiliate Summit:

PHOTOGRAPHY, RECORDING & VIDEO TAPING: Sessions may be photographed, recorded and/or video taped by Affiliate Summit. By your attendance, you give Affiliate Summit permission to be photographed, recorded or videotaped and agree to the public display and/or sale of the photographs, recordings and/or videotapes. Personal recording or videotaping of any kind during the event is prohibited.

This is part of what separates PodCamp from pro conferences (that and the price tag, PodCamp Boston 3 was 50,99 at the door, the Affiliate Summit is 949 for early bird,1,949 at the door). That said, there are several very good reasons for pro conferences to prohibit recording, considerations that went into PodCamp and were ultimately rejected.

1. Protection of speaker intellectual property. This is a big deal. PodCamp has been absolutely blessed by speakers like David Meerman Scott, Mitch Joel, David Maister, and many others, who normally charge tens of thousands of dollars to speak at a conference. The presence of any kind of recording online causes them real economic harm – it literally costs them money, since it makes them a less valuable speaker. Why? Exclusivity counts for a lot. Imagine being a conference planner and trying to advertise that your pro conference has information that’s exclusively available at your conference… and then finding out that your keynote speaker can be found on Blip.tv or mDialog for free. You’re less likely to book that speaker as opposed to someone who’s always behind a paywall.

2. Protection of conference revenue. One of the biggest sellers at a conference? The conference DVD, often for up to 2/3 of the price of the conference. If you pay 1,949 for the conference and the DVD is available for695 or you can see it on YouTube for free, which will you choose? More important, if recordings are freely available online, why would you go to the conference in the first place?

3. Protection of conference attendees. As we said at PodCamp Boston, the conference is the hallway. At top-tier pro conferences, there are a lot of folks floating around who, quite frankly, don’t want to be recorded for any reason unless they’re compensated to be, and that’s fair. That’s their choice. Some of these folks have exceptionally valuable information that isn’t intended for the world to consume, and the premium they charge for that information is their prerogative.

All of these considerations are valid, and make good sense for a professional conference model. That’s an important distinction, because a lot of folks in social media believe PodCamps, BarCamps, etc. are the evolution of the conference, and that the models which power PodCamps, BarCamps, and unconferences are the right way to go for professional conferences.

They are not.

Professional conferences and unconferences are two completely different animals, two completely different models. Professional conferences work on a revenue model that emphasizes profitability. Speakers get paid and share proprietary information, attendees pay and derive value from sessions (not to mention craploads of handouts, printouts, etc.) and access to VIPs, vendors and sponsors pay and get lead generation lists and access to top level corporate folks. Everything works.

Unconferences emphasize a revenue model of meeting costs. Attendees occasionally pay, sponsors pay for exposure, speakers don’t get paid, but the net effect is that everyone pays much less than a pro conference. An “expo floor” booth at an unconference will probably run a company 1,000 or less. An expo floor booth at a pro conference will cost at least10,000, if not more. Because no one’s making money beyond meeting costs, expectations are lower and people are more free. Again, everything works.

Which model is right? Both are right for their roles, and both are supremely wrong out of context. A professional conference that let recordings be free would do itself significant economic harm. A PodCamp that sold its registration list for $25/head would be demonized by its community. It’s inappropriate for members of either style of conference to criticize the other for not being more like them, since each plays a vitally important role in the events ecosystem, and each attracts the crowd that wants to be there.

There’s room enough for everyone, pro conferences and unconferences alike.

Did you enjoy this blog post? If so, please subscribe right now!

Why pro conferences are different than PodCamps and why neither is better 1 Why pro conferences are different than PodCamps and why neither is better 2 Why pro conferences are different than PodCamps and why neither is better 3

Get this and other great articles from the source at www.ChristopherSPenn.com

Zemanta Pixie

Comments

18 responses to “Why pro conferences are different than PodCamps and why neither is better”

  1. joec0914 Avatar
    joec0914

    I would pay for a pro conference to get to actually meet “big name” speakers, and interact with them. Seeing a presentation either in person or recorded is rarely, in my opinion, worth the money that conferences charge. But the chances of actually getting any real conversation time with a Big Name is very small at a conference with hundreds or thousands of attendees.

    So, I think I have to disagree with your assertion. I'd argue that the for-profit conference is the equivalent of Old Media. It's the We Talk, You Listen model. I think unconferences provide so much more value and learning potential. I base this on the experiences of a friend that attended her first PodCamp in Boston last month. She was just blown away by the fact that she could actually sit down and talk to people like CC Chapman, who have so much knowledge to dispense and that it only cost her $50. She made the point to me several times that she had gotten so much more out of PodCamp than any for-profit conference or seminar that she'd been to and paid hundreds or thousands for.
    It all comes down to value and the Long Tail model. I think the bottom-up, no-big-names, crowd-sourcing model is where much of the world is headed and conferences are no exception. Making money from the control of passive, read-only information is an increasingly difficult model to make work. It's the conversation with a knowledgeable person that's worth money, not some dead information.

    Reply
  2. Jay Moonah Avatar
    Jay Moonah

    “Imagine being a conference planner and trying to advertise that your pro conference has information that’s exclusively available at your conference… and then finding out that your keynote speaker can be found on Blip.tv or mDialog for free.”

    Interestingly, this is very similar to the argument that record companies have made for years about bootleg audio and video of shows being made availible. I always note that allowing a zillion versions of their songs to be freely traded online has never hurt the touring revenues of acts like The Dead or Dave Matthews Band.

    Great post Chris.

    Reply
  3. Christopher S. Penn Avatar
    Christopher S. Penn

    It is similar, except that DMB albums generally don't cost $2,000 each!

    Reply
  4. Christopher S. Penn Avatar
    Christopher S. Penn

    I think that depends more on the quality of the conference. If there's one area where there's some crossover, it's that each class of conference, unconference and pro, is forcing the other to innovate, and that's good for both.

    Reply
  5. Bob Goyetche Avatar
    Bob Goyetche

    I'm glad you wrote this post. Some people have become almost militant on how conferences should be all 'un'. It's not that simple or appropriate.

    Reply
  6. David Meerman Scott Avatar
    David Meerman Scott

    Great analysis, Christopher. I agree with what you say. As a speaker at both sorts of events, I feel that participating in both are important.

    Reply
  7. JoeCascio Avatar
    JoeCascio

    I would pay for a pro conference to get to actually meet “big name” speakers, and interact with them. Seeing a presentation either in person or recorded is rarely, in my opinion, worth the money that conferences charge. But the chances of actually getting any real conversation time with a Big Name is very small at a conference with hundreds or thousands of attendees.

    So, I think I have to disagree with your assertion. I’d argue that the for-profit conference is the equivalent of Old Media. It’s the We Talk, You Listen model. I think unconferences provide so much more value and learning potential. I base this on the experiences of a friend that attended her first PodCamp in Boston last month. She was just blown away by the fact that she could actually sit down and talk to people like CC Chapman, who have so much knowledge to dispense and that it only cost her $50. She made the point to me several times that she had gotten so much more out of PodCamp than any for-profit conference or seminar that she’d been to and paid hundreds or thousands for.
    It all comes down to value and the Long Tail model. I think the bottom-up, no-big-names, crowd-sourcing model is where much of the world is headed and conferences are no exception. Making money from the control of passive, read-only information is an increasingly difficult model to make work. It’s the conversation with a knowledgeable person that’s worth money, not some dead information.

    Reply
  8. Jay Moonah from NodeBB Avatar
    Jay Moonah from NodeBB

    “Imagine being a conference planner and trying to advertise that your pro conference has information that’s exclusively available at your conference… and then finding out that your keynote speaker can be found on Blip.tv or mDialog for free.”

    Interestingly, this is very similar to the argument that record companies have made for years about bootleg audio and video of shows being made availible. I always note that allowing a zillion versions of their songs to be freely traded online has never hurt the touring revenues of acts like The Dead or Dave Matthews Band.

    Great post Chris.

    Reply
  9. Christopher S. Penn Avatar
    Christopher S. Penn

    It is similar, except that DMB albums generally don’t cost $2,000 each!

    Reply
  10. Christopher S. Penn Avatar
    Christopher S. Penn

    I think that depends more on the quality of the conference. If there’s one area where there’s some crossover, it’s that each class of conference, unconference and pro, is forcing the other to innovate, and that’s good for both.

    Reply
  11. JoeCascio Avatar
    JoeCascio

    I would pay for a pro conference to get to actually meet “big name” speakers, and interact with them. Seeing a presentation either in person or recorded is rarely, in my opinion, worth the money that conferences charge. But the chances of actually getting any real conversation time with a Big Name is very small at a conference with hundreds or thousands of attendees.

    So, I think I have to disagree with your assertion. I'd argue that the for-profit conference is the equivalent of Old Media. It's the We Talk, You Listen model. I think unconferences provide so much more value and learning potential. I base this on the experiences of a friend that attended her first PodCamp in Boston last month. She was just blown away by the fact that she could actually sit down and talk to people like CC Chapman, who have so much knowledge to dispense and that it only cost her $50. She made the point to me several times that she had gotten so much more out of PodCamp than any for-profit conference or seminar that she'd been to and paid hundreds or thousands for.
    It all comes down to value and the Long Tail model. I think the bottom-up, no-big-names, crowd-sourcing model is where much of the world is headed and conferences are no exception. Making money from the control of passive, read-only information is an increasingly difficult model to make work. It's the conversation with a knowledgeable person that's worth money, not some dead information.

    Reply
  12. Jay Moonah from Wild Apricot Avatar
    Jay Moonah from Wild Apricot

    “Imagine being a conference planner and trying to advertise that your pro conference has information that’s exclusively available at your conference… and then finding out that your keynote speaker can be found on Blip.tv or mDialog for free.”

    Interestingly, this is very similar to the argument that record companies have made for years about bootleg audio and video of shows being made availible. I always note that allowing a zillion versions of their songs to be freely traded online has never hurt the touring revenues of acts like The Dead or Dave Matthews Band.

    Great post Chris.

    Reply
  13. Christopher S. Penn Avatar
    Christopher S. Penn

    It is similar, except that DMB albums generally don't cost $2,000 each!

    Reply
  14. Christopher S. Penn Avatar
    Christopher S. Penn

    I think that depends more on the quality of the conference. If there's one area where there's some crossover, it's that each class of conference, unconference and pro, is forcing the other to innovate, and that's good for both.

    Reply
  15. BobGoyetche Avatar
    BobGoyetche

    I’m glad you wrote this post. Some people have become almost militant on how conferences should be all ‘un’. It’s not that simple or appropriate.

    Reply
  16. BobGoyetche Avatar
    BobGoyetche

    I'm glad you wrote this post. Some people have become almost militant on how conferences should be all 'un'. It's not that simple or appropriate.

    Reply
  17. David Meerman Scott Avatar
    David Meerman Scott

    Great analysis, Christopher. I agree with what you say. As a speaker at both sorts of events, I feel that participating in both are important.

    Reply
  18. David Meerman Scott Avatar
    David Meerman Scott

    Great analysis, Christopher. I agree with what you say. As a speaker at both sorts of events, I feel that participating in both are important.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This