“If I can sit in my office and watch the conference, why spend the $2,000 to attend?”

and then

“Let’s get back to why we go to conferences… the networking and the education.”

I’m a conference organizer myself, so I worry about this kind of stuff. I honestly think the majority of conference attendees pay the fee probably 80% for the networking and 20% for the content. Which is fine, if you can make sure the networking is top-notch.

What our co-founder (not CEO) Bhaskar was doing was allowing the audience – both inside and outside of the room – to ask questions and give feedback on the panel via Qik’s live chat feature. The remarks appear on the cell phone’s screen while the event is being recorded. This integration of a back-channel to a panel is nothing new, as we’ve been doing this kind of stuff at events with IRC for years, but this particular method really is. I understand why it would grate for some people. I’ve personally never been a fan of the projected IRC back-channel behind the speaker(s), as I think it’s distracting and unfair to the people on the dais.

As someone said above, the reason people pay to attend conferences is by and large because of the opportunity to meet interesting people. I don’t think live streaming is going to kill the conference business model, that’s for sure. Indeed, Micah and Andrew (who own PDF) were using Qik themselves throughout the conference, aggregating Qik videos from attendees on the event blog, and very excited about the opportunity to extend the audience beyond those who had several hundred dollars for a ticket, flights, and hotel to be there in person. Your mileage may vary, but I don’t think it’s a big mystery why the live element is so popular and exciting to so many people.

Oh, and that Twitter feature whereby a message is sent saying that the person is streaming live? Totally optional, controlled by the individual user, and not “some Qik robot on continuous tweet” as Jim Hirschfield guessed above. Just as it’s up to you whether or not to watch a person’s live streams, it’s up to you whether or not to follow someone who tweets their live status so they can invite viewers into an event. I don’t know a better way to configure this than by giving everyone a choice in the matter.

https://twitter.com/kittell/statuses/842607441

Conference/meeting organizers need to put a stop to this type of behavior. If speakers are getting paid, in cash or in-kind or whatever, then they should be doing their JOB and focus on the task at hand.

And to echo Rick Dobbs’s comment above, if you paying to be at the conference, then get the most value of your dollar and pay attention to what is being said.

Posting online LIVE, unless that is your job, is only feeding a narcissic need for attention among people who didn’t have or take the time to participate in the discussion in person. Focus your attention on those who really care or are equipped to care by being present in the same room. If you must post something, then at least be discreet about it!

Personally I hate panel discussions, I don’t think they deliver as much value as a well-thought-out speech. I probably will turn down any more of those.

I agree him and with Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins that the “Twitting (etc.) from the stage” is most distracting, and should not be encouraged.

As far as the “passive” streaming of the event, this should not necessarily be distracting – unless roaming the room with a laptop! – but if this was a “paying” event, I understand the wish to keep such streaming under control as well.

Turn it the other way round, if you were sitting through a talk and you’re text-ing on your mobile frequently (because of whatever family issues that sprung up), you’ll be probably be frowned upon as rude.

Perhaps this is what they meant by “changing the way we communicate”. Fine example of what the “change” is all about.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, I agree with you on all counts. I think the “live” has a place if it’s a demo session but can be a big distraction during a discussion.

Live isn’t bad, however. Good for those present to participate (if they can schedule it), and good (if edited) for those to access later (post-conversation).

Does this mean the Cluetrain is applicable to real-time? Well, no, but if you DO make the appointment, you can control/influence/participate in the conversation right then and there.

I don’t have the bandwidth to be anyone’s groupie. I refuse to say ‘how high’ when you say ‘jump! (come chat now!)’ ;)

Turning on a camera and streaming an event is another.

I don’t see anything wrong with videoing the event, either from the audience or the panel, particularly since no conference i’ve been to has understood the market or value to the general wilds of the internet of setting up a virtual conference experience.

Our liveblogged conference keynotes and panels are some of the most popular content we’ve had on the site.

Great post!!!