Rather than do a blow-by-blow of blogher, I’m going to make some general observations, and share my main take-aways from the day.
And, before you read any further, let me be completely clear – I have no criticisms whatsoever about the blogher conference AT ALL. Lisa, Elisa and Jory, all their volunteers, helpers, and sponsors, panelists and attendees – everyone did a great job. It was one of the best conferences I have ever attended, although I could have done without the "opera" at Nicolino’s.
I do however have some observations that I would like to share that perhaps will help us improve future events.
Conference program. One of the things I liked about blogher was the highly participatory format of the sessions. It really worked for most of the sessions.
The message was clear from the outset; the organizers felt that everyone in attendance could just as equally be on a panel as those sitting in the panel seats. The main difference was that the panelists had a unique experience to share with their peers. And, by and large, I think this was true of the blogher audience. Everyone I spoke to was pretty knowledgeable.
The participatory format really works well when the topic is issue-oriented, and diversity of opinion, of panelists and attendess, creates an energetic session.
Here’s the BUT:
Where I think the participatory format falls down (and in general btw, not just re: blogher) is when the intent of a session is to teach new skills or new materials. Under these circumstances, I think a more traditional presentation “teaching” format works better. That’s not to say that the audience shouldn’t be involved, but in a much more structured format that educates as it engages.
My take: anything that needs to convey new skills, and especially anything for newbies, should use a more traditional presentation model, so the attendees walk away with the new skill. As long as the overall agenda strikes the right balance, and offers a mix of session types – skills, issues, debates, birds of a feather – we can keep the conference from turning into death by powerpoint.
Second comment. Of all the sessions I attended, the only one I was a bit disappointed with was the closing session. I really liked the idea that Lisa, Elisa and Jory put forth at the beginning of the day, that the closing session would build the mother of all to-do lists. In practice, however, I think the group was too large to effectively do this. In my opinion (and YMMV), a number of the comments sounded more like folks waxing philosophical than actual concrete suggestions. Almost like the person really had something they needed/wanted to say, and they hadn’t yet had their moment in the sun. What they said wasn’t necessarily bad or uninteresting. It just wasn’t a concrete action. Hence my disappointment.
Not all the comments were like that – there were some good concrete suggestions. One that springs immediately to mind without even looking at my notes is Mary Hodder’s suggestion for a “speaker’s bureau,” which has already been executed as a speaker’s wiki.
But I didn’t feel like we walked away with a collective to-do list as much as individuals quietly left with theirs.
Now, one should never make a criticism without a suggestion, so here’s mine. Next blogher, the session before the closing session could be small group sessions. Perhaps organized in advance by interest area, but with a specific goal in mind – to walk into the closing session with at least one to-do to present to the assembled group. Each designated spokesperson would get a few minutes to present the group’s to-do and the ensuing discussion could be focused on agreeing a final, blogher to-do list.
With a group that large, I just think you have to focus the discussion and give everyone a chance to have their say beforehand.
Next post … speaking of personal to-do lists, I’ll share a few things that are on mine after blogher.
Elisa Camahort says
Hi Susan. I can agree with you on both comments. We did allow the four technical instructional sessions to use PowerPoints if they so chose and made sure they had projectors, although we had some WiFi snafus that didn’t help.
On the second one, one of our primary guidelines was to respect the “wisdom of crowds” I guess. After a long, full day it just seemed like most people didn’t want to recap with hard to-dos, but rather with their emotional reactions to the day.
That being said, that’s a really interesting idea to try to regroup in smaller groups before trying to have a closing session that is actually actionable or productive. You’re probably right that that’s the only way to be able to get focus out of such a large group.
Susan Getgood says
Elisa –thanks for the comments.
As I said, I have no significant criticisms at all – I think you guys did an absolutely brilliant job.
The issue with the tech sessions was that there was too much knowledge in the audience (to be expected) which may have taken away from the authority of the teachers. I am not proposing a rigid model by any means, but I do think it is a different game when you are trying to teach, versus share or discuss. With that in mind, I’d suggest that the teaching sessions be a bit more scripted.
As far as the closing session, I didn’t think it was a bad session by any means – it just disappointed me that we didn’t have a clear path of action, and again, as I said in my post, I just don’t think it was possible in that large a group.
Sour Duck says
“…a number of the comments sounded more like folks waxing philosophical than actual concrete suggestions. Almost like the person really had something they needed/wanted to say, and they hadn’t yet had their moment in the sun. What they said wasn’t necessarily bad or uninteresting. It just wasn’t a concrete action.”
I really agree with this assessment, and that the closing part was a bit weak and used in some cases just to stand up and make a generalization rather than engage with the topic. Good insight.