Thank you for strong EAGs in 2020 and 2021, in ultra-challenging circumstances! Re:
The virtual side of the event underperformed, although it still added around 1,500 connections; it was positively received by attendees, but we did not optimize it.
We are reconsidering running hybrid conferences in the future, and might run separate virtual and in-person conferences in order to give more attention to each side.
Sharing across one data point that I found the virtual event and a few subsequent connections very valuable. Conflicting October travel meant I wouldn’t have applied/been able to join in-person in London — so it was both useful and encouraging to participate in the virtual side of the event.
Without endorsing this particular source, this strikes me as a valuable perspective as far as inclusion reasons to keep investing in hybrid options when viable.
1. Hybrid events are more inclusive and accessible than in-person-only events.
There are many barriers people may face to attending an in-person conference, especially if it requires flying or a long drive:
Physical disabilities and mobility issues: blindness, deafness, using a wheelchair or walker, inability to walk quickly, chronic pain, chronic fatigue
Health issues that require equipment or a regimented medication schedule to manage
Caring for children or older relatives at home
Complex dietary restrictions
...Hybrid events are more accessible to these audiences because they allow attendees to participate from home without travel or overnight stays.
Thanks for bringing this up. I appreciate the inclusion reasons to run virtual events. In practice, I think the virtual side of hybrid events is significantly worse than a fully virtual event; lots of in-person attendees or speakers who would want to interact with people who are attending virtually are too busy with the in-person conference, the organizers are split between the two sides (and largely focus on the more involved in-person side), and there’s a bit more confusion about how everything works. The upsides (simultaneous attendance at a big event) don’t seem to outweigh the downsides. But please let me know if you disagree!
So what I’m most excited about is having separate virtual and in-person conferences.
Thank you for strong EAGs in 2020 and 2021, in ultra-challenging circumstances! Re:
Sharing across one data point that I found the virtual event and a few subsequent connections very valuable. Conflicting October travel meant I wouldn’t have applied/been able to join in-person in London — so it was both useful and encouraging to participate in the virtual side of the event.
Without endorsing this particular source, this strikes me as a valuable perspective as far as inclusion reasons to keep investing in hybrid options when viable.
Thanks for bringing this up. I appreciate the inclusion reasons to run virtual events. In practice, I think the virtual side of hybrid events is significantly worse than a fully virtual event; lots of in-person attendees or speakers who would want to interact with people who are attending virtually are too busy with the in-person conference, the organizers are split between the two sides (and largely focus on the more involved in-person side), and there’s a bit more confusion about how everything works. The upsides (simultaneous attendance at a big event) don’t seem to outweigh the downsides. But please let me know if you disagree!
So what I’m most excited about is having separate virtual and in-person conferences.
+1 for separate virtual and in-person conferences as otherwise the virtual really gets second shrift.