Live events shape history.
Pick any moment in timeâthe Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Roman Forum, the biblical eraâand you'll find a congregation of people and the sharing of ideas to be the definitive force of progress and innovation of the age.
Gathering to debate and share ideas is such a natural human tendency that it was rare to find people who questioned the value of this practice. Some might prefer certain events over others, some might attend out of necessity rather than interest, but the value of attending eventsâof being at the center of those ideas and debates and decisionsâwas rarely called into question. At least until very recently.
Back in 2019, we published a collection of quotes from conversations with event leaders. These quotes were pulled from our IN-PERSON podcast series, where we feature the world's most daring events and the people who make them happen. The book ranged from topics like experiences to community to team leadership, but one of the first topics we covered was the most inspiring: âWhy events?â1 The answers, as you might expect, ran the gamut but shared a common theme. Here are a few of the quoted answers:
- Chardia Christophe-Garcia, then a marketing director at Forbes: âMore and more we're seeing that the event landscape isn't going anywhere. People want experiences. They want to have that one-to-one connection and networking.â
- Lindsay Niemic McKenna, then vice president of revenue marketing at Yext: âPeople understand that human connection is really important, especially as we're becoming a more digitized world.â
- Hugh Forrest, chief programming officer at SXSW: As much as we've changed and improved technology to be able to connect with people, nothing yet replaces real-time, face-to-face interactions in terms of creating new opportunities.â
- Colleen Bisconti, vice president of global conferences and events at IBM: âWe're seeing that the events are still the primary driver of marketing results. Events touch almost every single opportunity that progresses and ultimately closes. So it's a great place to be, and it's a great way to lean in and to provide business results. And that's why I love it so much.â
An event, at its core, is about community building: gathering people around a shared idea, vision, goal, market vertical, or story. In the modern context, and specifically in relation to corporate events, it's an opportunity to share the brand's story, to turn a slogan or a product or an idea into a tangible experience. It's an opportunity for businesses, nonprofits, and for-profit event organizers to show the world who they are and what they stand for during an intense (but limited) time frame. It's the one big chance many get each year to deliver an important message to a captive audience. It's an opportunity to celebrate and showcase a brand's achievements.
Events are also a key opportunity to grow business. In marketing terms, events offer value at virtually every stage of the sales funnel, from awareness to conversion and everything in between. They are a venue for finding new business, upselling old business, or simply strengthening relationships with customers and partners in hopes of improving future business. If you want to drive sales, history has proven that events are a great way to do so.
Finally, events are key to strengthening internal relationships. Just as they can facilitate commerce, they can also facilitate camaraderie. Business is based on relationships, and throughout history humanity has relied on shared experiences to establish or strengthen those bonds. Events are where those âhallway momentsâ happenâwhen relationships built on financial incentives, convenience, or coincidence evolve into something more concrete.
In short, events just kind of work, and always have. As long as they evolve.
Overcoming a History of Inertia
Events are such natural value creators that the industry behind live events has long faced a strong resistance to change. After all, events often accomplished the desired outcome for those who were organizing them, at least to the extent that they could measure that success, so who would take a costly gamble on change?
Furthermore, many organizations operate around a single annual flagship event, which would be the last place they wanted to experiment. You know the feeling of being on your toes, putting out metaphorical (or perhaps in some cases, literal) fires as they arise. In this high-stress environment, the safe option is often preferred, even at the cost of innovation. We can't blame anyone who's trying to facilitate an experience for 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 people for being risk averse, for falling back on tried-and-true methods and processes, for taking the route that gives them one less thing to worry about in the midst of their big event.
The other reason for such strong inertia in the events industry was that experimentation was also risky on an individual level. If your higher-ups think last year's event went well, why risk drastic changes that could threaten your career? Event organizing can be a thankless job. Having your event run smoothly is a baseline expectation. Sure, there are minor problems that can be improved on from year to year, but most changes go unnoticedâunless they cause a problem. Why risk your career to advocate for change when nobody is calling for it?
Obviously, this is a broad characterization. There are plenty of exceptions, many of which we will highlight in these very pages. Countless event heroes out there shook things up, pushed the needle, and took chances, and we wholeheartedly celebrate their boldness.
But while most industries were adopting an evolve-or-die mentality in the early 2000s and into the 2010s as a result of rapid technological innovation, the events industry found itself naturally inclined to take the opposite route. Rather than feeling pressured to evolve, as so many industries did during that time, event organizers were often under pressure to repeat last year's successâwhich was based on the year prior, which was based on the year before that, and so on.
According to industry thought leader Marco Giberti, âThe formula works well, and it's successful, and it's growing, and it's sustainable in many ways.â He told us recently over Zoom, âMost organizersâcorporate, for profit, or associationsâwere using a playbook that was solid and successful, growing nicely, and the overall reaction was, âWhy should I change if this is working?â There's no urgency for deep innovation, there's no urgency for transformation, because it's going pretty well.â
That old playbook, however, has since been rendered obsolete. For the first time, event organizers are now finding themselves in completely uncharted territory and are now being challenged to reinvent an industry long resistant to change.
An Industry Ripe for Disruption
On the surface it appeared that the events industry had been growing steadily; budgets were increasing, attendee numbers were growing, and event organizers were being given license to curate incredible experiences for their audiences.
Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, Google, Salesforce, Amazonânearly every major technology company produced a major flagship event for tens of thousands of attendees. Meanwhile, staging a flagship conference became a mark of success for thousands of emerging technology companies. And all this is to say nothing about how nonprofits, associations, media companies, and financial institutions leverage events to drive their own business goals.
A 2018 report published by the Events Industry Council reported that, accounting for indirect and induced impacts, events supported a global economic impact of $2.5 trillion of business sales, 26 million jobs, and $1.5 trillion of GDP. According to a 2021 report from Allide Marketing, the events industry was valued at $1,135.4 billion in 2019 and is expected to reach $1,552.9 billion by 2028, registering a compound annual growth rate of 11.2 percent from 2021 to 2028.2
Below the surface, however, Marco Giberti says events were simultaneously experiencing a gradual declineâso gradual that it largely went unnoticed. In recent years, the Net Promoter Score (NPS)âa metric used to measure customer loyaltyâwas flat at best. It was not a dramatic trend by any means, but it suggested something worth considering: both exhibitors and attendees weren't excited about the events they were going to. In other words, the experience of events was missing the mark.
What prevented many decision makers from seeing this decline involved the reliance on business models and benchmarks. The real estate model, for example, more often than not dictated the financial structure of some events. These events were often approached as a simple math equation: X square feet of exhibition space, divided by Y exhibitors, times $Z per square foot in the receivable column; marketing budgets, speaker fees, venue rental, catering costs, and other expenses in the payable column. So long as the revenue generated exceeded expenses, the event was in the black and was considered a success. If certain exhibitors or attendees had a negative experience, it didn't really matter as long as space (and registrations) sold out the following year.
In cases where profitability from exhibitors, sponsors, and registration sales was not the desired outcome (as for many corporate events), event organizers lacked a common set of benchmarks for evaluating how an event contributed to key business outcomes.
Proving event success, or return on events (ROE) as we call it, has long been an incomplete science with event organizers measuring the performance of events on a simple basisâif at allâwithout a clear understanding of the impact an event has on business outcomes. There was always a sense that things were working as intended, even if âhowâ or âwhyâ couldn't be precisely measured or explained. The lack of quality metrics to measure vital benchmarks like attendee experience, exhibitor and attendee return on investment, the overall quality of the experience, and so on, created a blind spot for the industry, and in that blind spot complacence was growing.
Unlike most industries at the turn of the millennium, live events had no external forces pressuring them to evolve, no new source of disruption, no real risk of being left behind in the digital era. The only risk was innovating too much too quickly, and inadvertently putting a wrench in an otherwise well-oiled machine.
A Temporary Pause and a Permanent ...