Thanks so much for taking the time to write up these thoughts. Lots of people seem to be having this experience, so I really appreciate that you brought it up.
We have in fact been prioritizing one-on-one meetings, as attendees have been reporting that they get a lot of value from them. And we’re always looking for ways to improve our approach, so we would love ideas on how to better support those meetings.
It sounds like you are pointing out the following things: 1) Some of the most engaged attendees are in one-on-one meetings for most of the conference, which makes attendees at other parts of the event (e.g. speed meetings) less able to share experiences— which in turn may even lead to some kind of feedback loop, where people stop going to anything but one-on-ones. 2) It’s not clear who and what the other sessions are meant for. 3) We should find more ways to support a meetings-first conference.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, because these points are super interesting and helpful to hear.
This was a very thoughtful response, yes, I am saying 1, 2 and 3.
I also think Kirsten and Rachel’s experiences are valuable (maybe they have distinct ideas that are less directly expressed).
For next steps (?) I don’t know if or how these points should be addressed. I guess this requires involvement by the event organizers at a high level, and is interwoven with other considerations that might be difficult for a user like myself to be aware of.
While taking into account the above, maybe we could brainstorm some more lower-level systems (e.g. to facilitate for 1:2 or 1:3 matching) if CEA decides this is useful?
Thanks so much for taking the time to write up these thoughts. Lots of people seem to be having this experience, so I really appreciate that you brought it up.
We have in fact been prioritizing one-on-one meetings, as attendees have been reporting that they get a lot of value from them. And we’re always looking for ways to improve our approach, so we would love ideas on how to better support those meetings.
It sounds like you are pointing out the following things: 1) Some of the most engaged attendees are in one-on-one meetings for most of the conference, which makes attendees at other parts of the event (e.g. speed meetings) less able to share experiences— which in turn may even lead to some kind of feedback loop, where people stop going to anything but one-on-ones. 2) It’s not clear who and what the other sessions are meant for. 3) We should find more ways to support a meetings-first conference.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, because these points are super interesting and helpful to hear.
This was a very thoughtful response, yes, I am saying 1, 2 and 3.
I also think Kirsten and Rachel’s experiences are valuable (maybe they have distinct ideas that are less directly expressed).
For next steps (?) I don’t know if or how these points should be addressed. I guess this requires involvement by the event organizers at a high level, and is interwoven with other considerations that might be difficult for a user like myself to be aware of.
While taking into account the above, maybe we could brainstorm some more lower-level systems (e.g. to facilitate for 1:2 or 1:3 matching) if CEA decides this is useful?