Homer Simpson Builds a Computer: An Event Design Parable

I recently caught an episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer (the bumbling father character--on the rare chance that anyone reading hasn't been exposed to "The Simpsons") decides that he wants to build his own computer.

Ever-ambitious, he gathers up the necessary supplies and assembles his masterpiece. He knows that a computer needs a keyboard, so he gets a typewriter. He finds a television set for a monitor. He attaches a CD player for a CD-rom drive. This continues on. All the elements come together and finally, Homer has a machine with all the functional parts of a computer.

But it doesn't work.

Just because all the elements are there, doesn't mean that it can perform the desired function, or produce the correct result.

We see the same thing happen with a lot of presentations in an event. (Or an event as a whole.) Not that we'd dare say that any meeting planner is akin to Homer Simpson, but they fall into the same trap.

They have the PowerPoints. They have the presenters. They have the content. They have the audience. They have the staging and breaks and food and evening activites. ALL elements have been collected, put together, and voila! Event!

The problem is, these individual elements don't make an event. Just as a computer is more than the sum of its parts, an event has to have every element designed with the outcome in mind. Just having content doesn't mean that the audience will absorb it. Having PowerPoint doesn't mean that there's a good presentation.

This is where event design comes in. When the event is designed with the brain in mind, instead of the individual elements that make up an event, the audience walks away knowing, doing and believing in the key objectives. Next time an event is being produced, don't just think about each element going into place--think about the whole direction of the event.
Comments

Cartoons in the Senate

The internet is somewhat up in arms about what is seen in the image above--Senator Al Franken using a political cartoon to illustrate a point during a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The editorial cartoon pointed out a problem with an existing financial bill that Senator Franken's proposed bill will solve.

Now, we're not touching the political aspects of the cartoon, proposed bill or Al Franken. What we *would* like to comment on, however, is how effective the showing of the cartoon is in making a point and as a presentation tool.

True to the form of editorial cartoons, this illustrates the crux of the issue in a highly visual manner. Senator Franken was able to leverage this to make a point that the public can easily relate to. Instead of trivializing the issue by being a cartoon--it highlighted his presentation in a way that was clear and engaging.

We've seen similar cartoons make their way into keynote speeches. Besides illustrating and highlighting particular points, they also make the audience stop, laugh and pay attention. The absurdity, the humor, the visual format all combine to make them an incredibly effective tool in a presentation.

So Senator Franken used a cartoon...and now everyone's talking about his presentation. Agree or disagree with his points; one has to admit that it's rare that a run-of-the-mill, every-day Senate presentation makes much of a ripple in mainstream news media. We doubt that such a stir would have been made if he used a PowerPoint slide rife with bullet points.
Comments

"We Have Met the Enemy, and He is PowerPoint"

While perusing the news, I came across this article in the New York Times about the U.S. Military rallying against PowerPoint as an instructional tool.

Full text is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html?no_interstitial

The slide to the left was used to explain military strategy. Do you get it? Apparently, neither does anyone else--showing the striking lack of clarity that relying on PowerPoint can bring to a presentation.

A few quotes out of the article (emphasis and italics mine):

“PowerPoint makes us stupid,” Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps

Gen. H. R. McMaster, who banned PowerPoint presentations. . . [likened] PowerPoint to an internal threat.

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,” General McMaster said. . . “Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.”

Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and says that sitting through some PowerPoint briefings is “just agony,”

Commanders say that the slides impart less information than a five-page paper can hold, and that they relieve the briefer of the need to polish writing to convey an analytic, persuasive point. Imagine lawyers presenting arguments before the Supreme Court in slides instead of legal briefs.

Senior officers say the program does come in handy when the goal is not imparting information.

Wow. Those are some pretty powerful statements from some people who have the responsibility to convey information effectively to the troops, higher ups, strategists, etc. The highlighted points in particular are both astounding and accurate:

Sitting through PowerPoint can be agony.
PowerPoint relieves the speaker of the responsibility to convey a concise, persuasive point.
PowerPoint is great when the goal is not imparting information.

And yet, PowerPoint is used almost exclusively in corporate presentations. What we've seen through the years has been right in line with the impressions of the article. Speakers all too often use PowerPoint as a crutch, and all too often, the PowerPoint itself hinders the ability to convey information--which is the opposite of its intention.

And yet:

“There’s a lot of PowerPoint backlash, but I don’t see it going away anytime soon,” said Capt. Crispin Burke, an Army operations officer at Fort Drum, N.Y.
It's not going away in the corporate space anytime soon either. So what can we do about it? Find the best ways to use PPT as a TOOL instead of an obtusification device. I've spoken a lot about PowerPoint on this blog here, giving tips such as making PPTs clean, clear, concise, not having them be speaking notes, etc. Those are just a start. Perhaps we need to seriously rethink our stance on PPT as a given--or cut back drastically. After all, if the military can see it, shouldn't a CEO/VP/VIP?
Comments

What's New Versus What's Needed.

Occasionally, we gain a new client because they're looking for something novel in their event--something different from what they've done the year before. I'm sure this request is foreign to absolutely zero production companies or event design firms. Our unique tools do fit the bill for this kind of request and it's good for us (so no complaints there), but I have issue with novelty in an event.

No, I'm not opposed to change or to doing something different within an event, but this approach is extremely problematic and it tends to create extreme parties and disparate event elements: The "it's not broke, don't fix it" camp and the "we can't do something they've seen before" camp.

All with attention on what's NEW instead of what's NEEDED.

Because I highly doubt that whatever new and novel juggler/act/entertainment/technology/game/etc. is really going to hide the fact that all the attendees have seen the same old PowerPoint from presenters. And novelty is great, but novelty with a purpose is even better.

Oftentimes, we'll be asked to do an AniMate for an event--something that a lot of attendees have not seen--or at least experienced--before. When we produce an AniMate character, the first thing we ask is how it will further the outcomes of the event. No outcomes? Okay, let's put down your outcomes. A presenter wants to interact with the AniMate? Okay, let's work on your presentation.

We end up doing much more than adding a novelty and consequently, though the attendees will have "seen it before", the characters are frequently brought back in subsequent years (for example).

The most frustrating thing to hear is this conversation:
"But we've done that before."
"Did it work?"
"Yeah, they loved it! And it was very effective."
"Then why aren't you doing it again?"
"Because we've done that before."

I understand the tendency to gravitate toward the novel, to impress with new technology and new elements, but if the rest of the event isn't going to change (it's still going to be a line of presenters one after another--a proverbial death-by-PowerPoint firing squad) then adding new bells and whistles is going to be a waste of money (and no wonder audiences will have little tolerance for what has "been done" if it's not on-purpose).

The point is, the search for novelty without factoring in what the event really needs is a futile endeavor. Sometimes what the event needs is what worked the last time. Sometimes the event needs something different. And sometimes the core elements of the event need to be reevaluated, and the novelty is nice to have, but not needed.
Comments

Up in the Air about Virtual Meetings

I know, I've been writing a lot lately about virtual events (both pros and cons). The topic seems timely and has captivated certainly the training world as well as the event world--so it makes sense that I keep coming across it on a day-to-day basis.

This weekend, I watched the recent blockbuster "Up in the Air", and I couldn't help but revisit the topic.

Putting all romantic and personal growth plot lines aside, at the heart of the movie is a company considering switching its face-to-face business into the virtual conferencing space. They're doing it for the reasons that I see a lot of companies eschewing in-person meetings for online conferences:

• It saves significant money on travel costs
• It saves time/energy on traveling
• It's new technology and therefore appealing
• It theoretically provides the information needed

BUT this company fires people--that's their product. George Clooney's character argues that this simply can't be done any way but face to face. By the end of the movie, the company has transitioned back to sending people on the road for in-person meetings instead of continuing to use the virtual solution.

Interesting to note here that this seems like a prime example of where virtual meetings would be most useful. All the numbers add up, the technology is there, etc. But at the heart of the movie we find that there are just some messages that have to be delivered face to face. People were insulted that they were told such life-changing news as a layoff, and there wasn't even the courtesy of having a person in the room with them. They were stuck staring at a video screen. How cold.

Companies utilizing virtual technology are, in some instances, doing so in reaction to economic hardship of some sorts. It's a cost-saving measure like anything else. But when they're not meeting in person, and are delivering OTHER economically sensitive news, what message is that sending to employees? That they don't care enough to look them in the eye and tell them that the annual yearly report isn't looking so great?

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be harsh. I understand perfectly the constraints of budget. However, one cannot ignore the human factor in the virtual world. And that, so far, is missing to me.
Comments

Virtual Events and The Popcorn Principle

Recently, we attended an event promoting virtual conferences and the technology surrounding virtual events. (Interestingly enough, we attended this event live and in-person instead of virtually. Hmm...)

The buzz in the event industry is, of course, that companies are either supplementing in-person events with some virtual meetings, or are replacing in-person events all together. At the very least, a lot of companies are exploring the virtual space and seeing how they can use it to cut costs or just to stay on the cutting edge of technology.

The event was incredibly educational and opened our minds to a lot of possibilities within virtual events; virtual interactions and networking, streaming media on-demand, even virtual spaces that were set up to look like "real" life.

Then, as we wandered from vendor spaces to streaming cafes to educational presentations, our senses were overwhelmed. There was...a scent. A delicious scent... Our mouths watered... Wait, it was.... Freshly-popped popcorn!

Where was it coming from?

We quickly sought out the source of enticement. One of the workshop providers had rented a popcorn machine and was handing out free snacks. As we took our tantalizing bags of buttery goodness, we wandered around their space, looking at their information and sitting down to watch their pitch. It was a great way to enhance our experience and draw us into their show.

But what is the virtual equivalent of popcorn?

The fact that it was a scent and food wasn't important. The point is this: a lot of elements go into an event. Some of these can be replicated in the virtual space, certainly; the PowerPoints/handouts, the speeches, even a bit of the networking.

Some of them are irreplaceable. Would you rather submit questions through a chat forum, or have the opportunity to network with your CEO/VP/Etc. firsthand? Would you rather video-conference about a new product, or get the chance to see it and touch it? Is a picture worth a thousand handshakes?

While we dive headlong into the world of virtual events, it's important to remember how valuable face-to-face contact and face-to-face events really can be. While the virtual world may save a bit (or a lot) of money, there's still a need for in-person events.
Comments

Too good not to share.

[At the Experient "Envision 2010" Event in Fort Worth, TX]

This is what an audience is *supposed* to look like at an event! Totally engaged and cheering (using a custom audience-response game show).
Comments (2)

Hybrid Events: The new crop of conferences.

We recently attended the Virtual Edge Summit, where the big buzz centered around "hybrid events". We have hybrid corn, hybrid pets, hybrid cars...in this modern day and age, it was only a matter of time before we got the hybrid event.

So what the heck is a hybrid event, anyway?

Simply put--a hybrid event is the blend of an in-person conference with a virtual component. This can be done several ways:
  • The event can be simultaneously broadcast--streaming from the live on-site event to the virtual event site online in real-time (in theory, both in-person and virtual attendees get the same content).
  • The live event can be re-played in the virtual space on a delay or with additional content.
  • The virtual event can supplement the live event--adding only additional content to the event, giving attendees a richer experience before or after the live event.
Wisely--though virtual events have become a solution to decreasing travel and production budgets--we haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In-person events may be toned down or reduced in size, but they still have undeniable appeal and value, and are regarded correctly as necessary. Going to an entirely virtual solution is not a route that companies seem eager to travel. (And virtual events present their own unique set of challenges where audience engagement is concerned.)

The main fear of event producers with the advent of the virtual event and hosting a hybrid event is that the virtual component cannibalizes attendance at the live event. I can see where this would be a concern, but initial forays into event hybridization have shown that: A) People who weren't going to attend an elective conference in person still won't attend in person; B) People who really wanted to attend in person will still attend in person; but it adds another component C) People who weren't going to attend in person might check out a virtual event and people who wanted to attend but couldn't now have that option to them open as well; and D) Virtual events can create buzz for the in-person event, increasing attendance there, too.

While we see the promise in hybridizing events, there's a danger in thinking that a broadcast of a live event is an adequate virtual event. A death-by-Powerpoint situation in a live setting is not improved by moving it into the virtual space. In fact, it's more difficult to capture and retain the attention of your audience when they're in front of their computer--one of the biggest distraction-makers and multi-tasking tools out there.

So while the future of a hybrid event is bright and undeniable, this is a prime opportunity to rethink the presentation of content and to tailor it for a broader virtual space.
Comments

5 Years of Service: The Staying Power of an AniMate

AniMated characters are a powerful communication tool at a meeting.

Sure, a 15-foot-tall AniMated head (or person, or animal...) is bound to be memorable. It's a 15-foot-tall talking-in-real-time AniMated head. That's something you don't just easily forget.

But the thing is, AniMates do more than make a flash-in-the-pan impact at an event. Even aside from making the content more memorable; reinforcing points through humor and recaps, captivating the audiences' attention and making them receptive to the message--AniMates really *connect* with an audience in an absolutely amazing way.

The certificate that you see in this entry is signed by the VP of Sales and the President of the Division for Honeywell. This is the same certificate that all Honeywell employees get when they've had 5 years of service. This year, they presented it to Petey the Pirate.

Occasionally, clients will use an AniMate one year, and then decide that they have to "do something different" the next year. They're missing the point. AniMates not only become part of the audience--but they're something that the audience looks forward to seeing every year.

I was backstage at this year's Honeywell event. Petey doesn't come out right away, of course. First, the VP of Sales--the host of the meeting--greets the audience and welcomes them to the event, etc. The last line of the VP's opening message was, "But I get the feeling we're missing someone..."

The audience started to chant: "Petey...Petey....Petey....Petey!"

Because Petey the Pirate is no longer just an AniMate. He's not--and never was--just a cheap gimmick to be discarded for the next new event-production fad. He embodied the spirit of the audience. He was their cheerleader, their comrade and their voice onstage in the type of an event where an audience is typically expected to be seen and not heard. He has become part of the culture of that division.
Petey is a prime example of the staying power of an AniMate. Five years and the audience snaps to attention whenever he comes on the screen. Five years and he is able to deliver key messages; both uplifting and the hard truth--in a way in which the audience can relate.

Five years, and Petey the Pirate has received a service recognition.

And he's definitely planning on showing up next year.
Comments

Getting AniMated about Gender Roles

We've done a lot of AniMated characters for a LOT of companies in a lot of different situations. One of the most common AniMates is an audience advocate character--a human (most often), virtual representation of the audience's mindset. The audience advocate asks presenters the tough questions on everyone's mind, brings up the audience's point of view, and is essentially one of "them" on the stage.

Because they add humor and let audiences know that they are being represented and taken into account, audience advocate AniMates are extremely popular.

And these characters are most often male.*

Occasionally we're asked the question: what if we made the AniMate a female?

A good question--and very appropriate when the audience skews female. And yet, we usually advise against a female AniMate save for cases in which the audience is *overwhelmingly* female.

It's not that we don't want to do female characters, but the reasons are--perhaps--more indicative of gender roles in most corporate cultures than anything. Whereas a male AniMate can get off telling an executive that they have to prove themselves, and that they're skeptical about the new plan (before the executive gives a refined and credible argument that turns the AniMate around--along with the audience, of course), when a female brings up the shortcomings of an authority (male or female) she can come off as...well...whining.

They're the same words written by the same writer--the only difference is the face and the voice behind the argument--yet in the perception of the character there is a world of difference.

We're not saying it's fair or it's right--it's just how it is right now with most audiences that we deal with. It's interesting that while an AniMate in general is a mirror of an audience, that the bias for a male or a female AniMate is a mirror of society.



*It's interesting to note that the scripting for these AniMates is written by a female writer.
Comments
See Older Posts...