As promised, here are the results from CHIEF MARKETER’s exclusive survey on what makes a conference worth your time and money. Some of the responses aren’t all that surprising–just about all the respondents cited “conference session content” as being “extremely important.” But some of the individual comments and gripes are as telling as the aggregate results.
First things, first: the stats. Seventy-four percent of respondents flagged networking opportunities as “extremely” or “very” important, and 70% said that the experience level of their fellow attendees really mattered as well. More than four-fifths (83%) felt that the reputation of the conference presenter made a big difference in their decision and satisfaction; a full two-thirds cited “exhibit hall expectations” as important, with 7% citing them as “extremely” important. In contrast, just 14% felt that entertainment mattered.
On to the comments. When asked “What is the one critical element or characteristic that must be present in any conference you attend, that influences your decision on attending the same event next year?” respondents emphasized the importance of being able to walk away with actionable–and preferably cutting-edge–suggestions. To wit:
• “Pertinent, practical, relevant to my job and my day-to-day challenges.”
• “I must be able to learn one new thing. Usually, this means I have met other professionals from whom I learn. They can be presenters, exhibitors, or other attendees. If I get all three, it’s a winner.”
• “I must feel I was pushed to create new ideas for my brand from ones presented.”
• “Cutting-edge topics and innovative ideas, challenges, solutions–that’s what brings me back.”
• “Presenters are ahead of me regarding their industry knowledge and present cutting-edge information.”
And respondents didn’t hold back when asked “What was your biggest gripe about any marketing conference you attended in the past two years?”:
• “Content was too basic, and attendees were not on a high experiential level.”
• “Programs so broad they do not provide concrete information. Program is marketed as one thing, but the actual presentation is something completely different.”
• “Session information too general or common knowledge. Speakers too general, not specific.”
• “The information is so basic as to be useful only to people just entering the field.”
• “Too many presenters were not willing to share specifics. Almost every audience member’s question relating to anything beyond basic information was deemed proprietary information.”
• “Presenters use the time to pitch their company or brand.”
• “Too many vendor sales pitches.”
• “Sell-a-thon. No content. Pie in the sky from presenters without anything usable.”
• “Theoretical generalities designed to spark an interest in me to hire the presenter.”
• “Too much ‘us’ time for presenters. It was like going from one used-car salesman to another, with opportunities to visit the exhibit hall and more salesmen in between.”
• “Lack of consciously developed networking opportunities for attendees. For many, networking is difficult, and any sort of thoughtfully planned activity by the conference host is welcome.”
• “No organized interaction with prospects pre/during/post.”
• “Listening to a bunch of boring panelists drone on about their companies instead of providing any real insights to their audience. No information about tactics that have actually failed. I learn from endeavors that have not worked out.”
Network
