Are conferences failing you too?
I recently asked a big software company executive if big exhibitions are good marketing value. The reply:
It's not a waste of money. It's a colossal waste of money.
So that's a 'no'.
Is there a problem here?
Next week I'll be at the biggest exhibition (and conference) in our sector: the SEG Annual Meeting. Thousands of others will be there, but far more won’t. Clearly it’s not indispensable or unmissable. Indeed, it’s patently missable — I did just fine in my career as a geophysicist without ever going. Last year was my first time.
Is this just the nature of mass market conferences? Is the traditional academic format necessarily unremarkable? Do the technical societies try too hard to be all things to all people, and thereby miss the mark for everyone?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions, I can only speak for myself. I'm getting tired of conferences. Perhaps I've reached some new loop in the meandering of my career, or perhaps I'm just grumpy. But as I've started to whine, I'm finding more and more allies in my conviction that conferences aren't awesome.
What are conferences for?
- They make lots of money for the technical societies that organize them.
- A good way to do this is to provide marketing and sales opportunities for the exhibiting vendors.
- A good way to do this is to attract lots of scientists there, baiting with talks by all the awesomest ones.
- A good way to do this, apparently, is to hold it in Las Vegas.
But I don't think the conference format is great at any of these things, except possibly the first one. The vendors get prospects (that's what sales folk call people) that are only interested in toys and beer — they might be users, but they aren't really customers. The talks are samey and mostly not memorable (and you can only see 5% of them). Even the socializing is limited by the fact that the conference is gigantic and run on a tight schedule. And don't get me started on Las Vegas.
If we're going to take the trouble of flying 8000 people to Las Vegas, we had better have something remarkable to show for it. Do we? What do we get from this giant conference? By my conservative back-of-the-envelope calculation, we will burn through about 210 person-years of productivity in Las Vegas next week. That's about 6 careers' worth. Six! Are we as a community satisfied that we will produce 6 careers' worth of insight, creativity, and benefit?
You can probably tell that I am not convinced. Tomorrow, I will put away the wrecking ball of bellyaching, and offer some constructive ideas, and a promise. Meanwhile, if you have been to an amazing conference, or can describe one from your imagination, or think I'm just being a grouch — please use the comments below.
Map data ©2012 Google, INEGI, MapLink, Tele Atlas.
Matt Hall
Don't miss the next post, Ways to experiment with conferences.
conferences, ideas in Career, Science 
Reader Comments (16)
I find that the big conferences, the SEGs and AAPGs, are generally not worth the bother, mostly for the reasons you list above. The smaller specialist ones, with a specific theme, can be better, since you know that everyone there is pretty much interested in the same things as you are. And there are no vendors (except the ones giving talks) so not as much need to big up the proceedings so they can get their exhibitor's fees back and justify going next year.
I have been to a 50:50 mix of the big and small over my career, which matches yours in timescale almost exactly, and all the best/most useful ones have been the small ones.
Either we are both right or both getting grumpy at the same time.
I agree with Richie B that the small conferences are much better and more efficient. I've recently been to a small symposium for gravity and geoid and it was the best and most productive I've ever been to (not that I've been to that many). In the big conferences, networking is not as easy to do. To me, making connections with people interested in similar things is the most important thing you can gain from a conference.
I was recently at a massive Learning conference at Disney, in Florida. It was an awesome opportunity for me to catch some great talks, refresh my ideas, and come back to work fully loaded with soundbites and new directions for some of the projects I'm working on.
Would I attend a conference with similar subject matter on a regular basis? Probably not, there isn't enough value in doing it often.
Would I attend another large conference in a different topic? For sure. Aside from the information I came back with, the conference exposed me to a whole new group to learn from, and I can continue to learn from that group via social media etc. I'm now engaged in a community that I may not otherwise be aware of.
Is there a way to build that engagement without flying 1500 people to Florida for 3 days? Probably, but I think there's power in kicking off that engagement in person and continuing it online.
I agree with commenters above -- the large conferences seem to be more social. I still like them because I end up talking to a lot of people (sometimes about science, sometimes not) that I typically don't on a regular basis. Collaborations can be spawned. But, for intellectual value I like the smaller, focused conferences. I need to do both these days, or I'd surely get grumpy like you :)
Brian's comment above is spot-on for me as well - it is the networking, it is about reconnecting with nice people I have worked with in the past, and about making new 'professional friends'. I tend to stay away from the sessions in my own specialty (I try to stay up to speed with what is cooking there on a more continuous basis) and instead try to catch what is new and exciting in other specialties that for the one or other reason have some importance or attraction to me... But yes, with over 10 parallel sessions things can get overwhelming - and quieter, more focused small conferences are less stressful. But all in all, I am looking forward to heading over to Las Vegas this weekend!
That said - a new generation is growing up - our kids or today's students are digitally hyper-connected, and similar to Matt, to them the idea to fly so far just to meet some folks face-to-face - and that in a big crowd of pushy people - may be much less appealing. So just how our professional societies can leverage these emerging digital networking techniques will be an exciting challenge... I would not be surprised if some years from now those types of conferences will look so different that we might say they don't exist anymore as the type of event we presently love or hate :) I am glad that Matt will help the SEG to successfully move towards this promising (and sometimes scary) more digital future!
As a geophysics student, the SEG Annual Meetings have given me access to interesting ideas that I would not have been exposed to otherwise (at least not so many so quickly). I guess this echoes Stephan's comment about checking out sessions outside of your specialty. For a student, that tends to be most of the sessions. Even those sessions within my area of research will likely contain information that I haven't seen before.
This is also a great opportunity for students to find potential employers. I actually got my first internship as a geophysicist by starting a conversation with someone right after a technical talk at the 2009 SEG.
Finally, I am expecting the workshops at the end of the week to simulate the smaller meetings that have been mentioned above. I'm really looking forward to the Rock Physics workshop!
So many great comments — thank you everyone. It seems like there are at least two trends emerging — small conferences may be more satisfying, and the social and networking aspect is valuable. I guess the latter might be part of why big conferences exist too.
On the networking thing, there are two things I wonder about. Firstly, since this is so important to people, why doesn't the conference help out a bit? The coffee are short and frenzied, largely spent queuing for the gents. There is commonly nowhere to sit. Name tags are the wrong way around 50% of the time. There's no list of attendees. Many social events cost extra, entail OD'ing on hotel catering, or are otherwise unappealing.
Secondly, is the depth of the networking substantial enough? I mean, it's fun to collect business cards and accept LinkedIn invitations after chatting to someone for 10 minutes in the hotel lobby, but the chances of the connection being meaningful seem slim. It's a lottery — 1 in 10 or 20, perhaps. There's no real depth, no trust, no inherent necessity to most of the connections made in these big crowds. Imagine if instead you came away from an event having actually worked with half the people you met.
I think the key question to answer is "Why are you going to the conference?"
Most of my conference time is about talking to people; this includes connecting with my exiting network, and, increasingly, taking online relationships out into the "real world." Ultimately, companies don't do business, but people do.
At small conferences like CSEG and ASEG you can usually achieve this by "walking the floor", but at the EAGE and SEG its significantly harder. You need to have a plan that extends beyond a "spam-o-gram" to everyone you know and directly set up the meetings that you want to have - or need to have - which takes time, energy and planing.
On the technical side, things are a bit different.
I suspect that the numbe of high quality technical "open" dicussions at big and small conferences might be similat, but the larger conferences have more big-budget "advertorial" papers making these things harder to spot/find. We tend to look at the workshops at the larger conferences, and make some calls on that; we had about double the team this year at the EAGE in Copenhagen than we will take to Las Vegas, for example.
For both technical and commercial aspects of what we do, goal setting and feedback is important.
We often set up specific tasks (user stories, perhaps?) before the conference (start-up?) for example :
- "compare the various broadband marine technologies from the different companies",
- "to what extent is seismic being used for oil shale plays in the US"
- "what is coming out from the universities now which will be mainstream in 5 years?"
and assign them to specific people, who will then report back on that issue with a presentation to the team as a whole (close down!). We have similar goals - usually assigned to individuals - for business outcomes. Finally we do a bit of a retrospective on the conference, and work out if we are going next year.
If it sounds a bit structured, its because we want to make sure we get the maximum value we can from a conference, and that's more than just a bucket full of cards from people who wanted to be in our prize draw.
I find meeting strangers in person very stressful and enjoyed SEG because of the anonymity. I barely opened my mouth all week and, like Antonio, heard enough to keep me thinking for months. But it almost certainly wasn't worth the cost.
On the other hand a small technical meeting I went to left me a complete nervous wreck, worrying about all the information that was obviously being passed around in conversations that I couldn't bring myself to join in on. And it left me wondering: why is all this knowledge being restricted to those who go to conferences and talk in person, instead of being passed around more widely, like you guys do here with this blog?
Finally someone writes what we have all been thinking for so long !!!
I disagree with Ritchie B. Although smaller specialist conferences are very useful, especially technical or industry conferences that offer short courses, large conferences have their use. At big meetings, ie. AGU Fall Meeting, there is such a diversity of fields that it makes for the perfect environment to network. My research combines, field geology, geophysics, and fluid dynamics. AGU is especially useful because I can find people to talk to and brains to pick about varying topics (or problems) within my research. Talking one on one to people at poster sessions is fun and the faster way to learn. Also, if your brain gets overloaded, you can always wander poster sessions on a topic you have zero knowledge on (magnetophysicswhat?!).
@Guy: I love the idea of showing up with purpose, rather than just the vague hope I'll see something new and interesting, or a half-baked plan to find people I enjoy talking to. MAny purpose I start with seems to evaporate on arrival — this year will be different! I also like 'spam-o-gram' — what a great word.
@Student: I'm so glad you posted that comment — I have never thought about it like that before. But you're onto something important I think. It's connected to our 'expert' culture, and has to change.
Great comments. I was unsure about posting this piece, because I was worried it would seem too critical, but I'm so glad I did. I love hearing all these perspectives.
Part of the problem with conferences now may be that they don't have much use in today's connected world. One may get more information and certainly more discussion and interaction on a site like this than you ever could at a conference. Here you can have a real, dynamic conversation, not just be spoken to (and shown a PowerPoint presentation that I'm sure took a lot of work).
Even the networking advantages of conferences are largely evaporating. Sure, you could grab a coffee/tea/beer with a collegue in person, maybe exchange business cards, but on-line we are capable of meeting and engaging with peers from around the world.
I've never been to a geophysics conference (I have very little reason to go), and it seems from reading this that like they are exactly what I think they'd be. I know that many professions require that all members attend a certain number of hours each year for continuing education credits; from my own family I know this is true of Doctors, Accountants and Architects.
For sure some of these conferences or seminars are a waste, and some are just fluff. Hint: if it takes place in Hawaii or Las Vegas it's fluff. Leave your learning hat at home and bring your drinking pants.
There are other conferences/seminars though that are truly useful or interesting, outside of the whole I-get-to-keep-my-designation part. I don't know how you can really identify the good ones or how to pick the winners though (whether in Vegas or otherwise); I guess it's a crap shoot. One more pun: I guess you just have to roll the dice and hope for the best.
Or do research into the topic and speaker and make an informed decision (and sometimes the right decision is to stay home).
Agree more with TSherry than some of the other views. The focus of small conferences can be good, but the beauty of events like AGU is the ability to get a feeling for what's going on in a broad sprectrum of subject areas. Whenever I've been to AGU I've had the most interesting and knowledge broadening chats with people while strolling around the poster sessions looking at stuff I'd never bother with otherwise. Certainly, I think that online interaction is no substitute for face to face networking (call me old-fashioned) over a beer, coffee or fruit based drink of your choice.
This is really good "Emperor's New Clothes" stuff, Matt. It's amazing how rampant the herd mentality is. I'm on the vendor side and, not too long ago, I asked one of our managers, "Why do we have a booth at SEG? We get a very small ROI." He replied, "We cannot NOT go. All our competitors will be there!" Therefore, it becomes more of a perceptual issue vs. a financial decision.
On the other hand, you did not address the more un-quantifiable value in conventions: building social capital and the exchange of information encoded in human behavior. For example, during an evening party, a colleague could offhandedly mention that Big Oil Co is planning.a very large reprocessing project. This information is almost never public information, but is transferred through social networks.
Nonetheless, let's face the ugly truth about SEG (and most technical conferences): if you are a vendor with a booth touting a "new" technology, most of the passive booth traffic will be competitors, R&D groups (looking to preserve their Big Oil Co. tenure), venture capitalists, geo-journalists, and students. MInd you, the larger vendors will have done their homework and will be prepared for pre-planned booth traffic by sending out personal invitations for attendees to select a specific presentation time to see the new gizmo. But most folks that travel to conventions also want to LEARN about new technology in a relaxed fashion, i.e. dropping by a booth on THEIR time, not stressed out to fit the vendor's schedule. One-on-one (or small intimate group) presentations--shoulder-to-shoulder--will ALWAYS trump the the big tent revival style software demo presentations which are decidedly impersonal and too sales pitch-y.
Okay - so how did it actually go for everyone then?
We were there really just for the trade exhibition, as I commented, and for us it was pretty good.
I'd actually go as far as saying that while the SEG has been quite slow for us in the past few years, this was significantly different.
While it wasn't as busy as some conferences in terms of people wandering around, those who came to the stand were mostly looking to do business in some way, and there was a sense of urgency especially from the non-US people we met - as an example we were being asked for formal written quotes, not ball park figures, and people were discussing their timelines for making decisions.
We met up with 90% of the people we were aiming to see, and the unexpected meetings and outcomes more than made up for the 10% we dropped. Some of these will lead to some pretty urgent follow up...
All in all, I'd say it was suprisingly good, and I'm happy with the outcome.
While its still not my favourite location, venue, or set up, on this occasion - Viva Las Vegas...
However, lets see what actually closes over the next six months after the post-confernece buzz wears off...