It’s not about BIG meetings…

February 18, 2010 · View Comments

Yesterday, Seth Godin told us “No more big events” – while today he wants to inform us of “The best reason for a big event.” Funny, I thought “no more” meant there should be “no more”…like “none.” Which should mean there could be no “best reason” to have one.

May I suggest there are only two reasons to have a meeting – regardless of size?

1) to convey content
2) to enhance emotion

Every successful meeting I’ve had the privilege of keynoting – from over 20,000 in attendance on a few occasions to small group seminars of 100 – all fifty states and fifteen countries — have those two elements at the core.

The problem for most meetings is that we’ve intensely considered neither. We know we have to tell our group something – but, we ignore the emotional aspect and aren’t precise on the message. Therefore, we end up with a mess.

Should you have an annual conference? Should your organization invest in meetings and conventions? Of course.

In today’s world, you know there is information that has changed from last year to this. Yet, at the same time, an organization that feels emotionally connected develops an enhanced ability to function as a team.

Would you have five assistant coaches intensely practice with a basketball team’s starting five separately and individually? Would you then throw them on the floor at game time and say, “OK…now, go play as a team?” Of course not.

For a team to function together, you have to get them together at some point. It’s not only to communicate the knowledge of plays that should be run, or defensive assignments for the game…it’s to get them to FEEL LIKE A TEAM.

And, it’s why social media and wireless connectivity will NEVER totally replace the big (and small) meeting…anymore than television totally replaced radio…or radio dramas totally replaced live stage shows. We can convey content remarkably well via our technology – but we cannot connect as well in that manner.

Why are TweetUps becoming so popular? It’s obvious – we want to meet…IN PERSON…those individuals with whom we’ve been communicating. We want to enhance the emotional connectivity to deepen the relationship with those people we’ve been sharing content with…it’s a need as old as humanity itself.

The problem isn’t big events. It’s BAD events.

It’s spending more on the menu than the message. It’s focusing more on statistics than speakers. It’s because, in the meetings world, there has been a “Collapse of Distinction.

And that’s an awful thing for organizations…and the people who work for them…and the customers who buy from them.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • I usually say that there are three goals of a meeting. It seems you left out the second one:

    1. Tell the truth (Content)
    2. Do some good (Move people forward)
    3. Entertain (Lighten the load people carry or enhance emotion and inspire positive action)


    I think all three are necessary. Content without positive movement is not a good meeting. That is, by definition, a bad meeting. I have attended some of those.


    Gary Sweeten
  • By bad events, I take it to mean "boring." And boring means "without emotion."

    Funny how one of the first things people did with Twitter was to start meeting in person. Because you can't hardly convey emotion in a tweet, can you?

    When texting got big, people starting creating emoticons. Again, to share emotions that are hard to describe.

    If we as human beings use emotions to feel connected and feeling connected is a vital human need, then we are always going to want to meet in person. Big events will be big attractions to satisfying this need.

    I won't presume to say that Seth is wrong, I'm just not quite following where he's going with this :-)
  • Beth --

    What a brilliant point!

    I'd never thought about emoticons as our effort to share those "hard to describe" in words emotions.

    An acquaintance sent Seth this blog series, and the response was that today's effort was a "punchline"...although, it felt more like a retraction to me. He is a brilliant, insightful genius...however, even they can miss the mark sometimes. I am a fan of his -- so, I'm not trying to "flame" or be a "hater." I just think -- in this single, specific issue -- he missed the mark.

    And, because so many of us...from meeting professionals, to speakers, to Chamber execs, to hotel managers...have so much at stake here, it's irresponsible not to defend what we do.

    Thanks for reading...and participating. I'm grateful that you expanded the conversation here.

    Scott
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: