Posted By: Anthony Story Date : 14 Oct 2008 11:01am
I finished the last posting wondering what effect video streaming could have on an event. Is it really worth going to the trouble to provide it?
Of course conferences and events have been filmed for years and we’re all used to seeing presenters projected on large screens above the stage. Then also, once it’s finished, some organisers add the video to a website (ideally) after some prudent editing.
It’s not that this doesn’t have any benefit, but I’m not certain it’s the best approach. I think the timing of an event is important. Like a sport, there is something special about the fact that an event is live. Looking at a presentation after its done and dusted somehow misses the moment.
It’s this element that live video streaming captures. As with the blog (discussed below), it gives people who can’t make it to an event a chance to join in, no matter where they are. They can see all the presentations as they happen – even better if you stream the slides at the same time.
The main benefit of this approach is choice – giving the delegate a chance to choose how they join in. From the event organisers’ point of view, it would mean changing the definition of success - away from the numbers of delegates physically attending to the number of people joining in. This is potentially a bigger hurdle than the technology, as it requires a big leap of faith and change of expectation.
More to the point I’m not convinced that this works on its own.
Watching a video and/or reading a blog is useful, it offers an experience (which could be better than no experience), but it doesn’t answer, arguably, the most important element – being a part of it. Talking, questioning, meeting - are perhaps all as vital as the opportunities to watch and listen. Offering choice is good, but the threat of video making a serious challenge to the ‘humble’ event format it remains very dim. To create that you’d have to offer the online delegate the power to join in and interact. Hmmmmm…… more on that next time.
Of course conferences and events have been filmed for years and we’re all used to seeing presenters projected on large screens above the stage. Then also, once it’s finished, some organisers add the video to a website (ideally) after some prudent editing.
It’s not that this doesn’t have any benefit, but I’m not certain it’s the best approach. I think the timing of an event is important. Like a sport, there is something special about the fact that an event is live. Looking at a presentation after its done and dusted somehow misses the moment.
It’s this element that live video streaming captures. As with the blog (discussed below), it gives people who can’t make it to an event a chance to join in, no matter where they are. They can see all the presentations as they happen – even better if you stream the slides at the same time.
The main benefit of this approach is choice – giving the delegate a chance to choose how they join in. From the event organisers’ point of view, it would mean changing the definition of success - away from the numbers of delegates physically attending to the number of people joining in. This is potentially a bigger hurdle than the technology, as it requires a big leap of faith and change of expectation.
More to the point I’m not convinced that this works on its own.
Watching a video and/or reading a blog is useful, it offers an experience (which could be better than no experience), but it doesn’t answer, arguably, the most important element – being a part of it. Talking, questioning, meeting - are perhaps all as vital as the opportunities to watch and listen. Offering choice is good, but the threat of video making a serious challenge to the ‘humble’ event format it remains very dim. To create that you’d have to offer the online delegate the power to join in and interact. Hmmmmm…… more on that next time.
