-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/01/big-conferences-are-dead/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
danja
44 comments · 4 points
-
polizeros
52 comments · 1 points
-
AndyBeard
69 comments · 4 points
-
Zachary Adam Cohen
35 comments · 8 points
-
dbarefoot
40 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
1 day ago · 22 comments
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
1 week ago · 181 comments
-
2010: the year SEO isn’t important anymore
1 week ago · 67 comments
-
A new addition here: the Meebo bar
1 day ago · 7 comments
-
iPhone developers abandoning app model for HTML5?
1 week ago · 52 comments
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
The people I keep running into these things are other journalists and bloggers anyway. So we'll have to go visit Sony's offices now to get the hype on PlayStation3. Boohoo. I won't miss the 2-hour taxi lines, that's for sure!
"The wii is great. It's lots of fun to play."
Wow, that Nintendo exec sure did convince me. I'm glad I don't have to find out for myself if it's true or not.
That's why I like E3 like it is, because you can go and demo the new games and hardware for yourself. You know, objectively, not what some CEO tells you. And if I couldn't go, I trust a non-biased company like GameSpot to report back to me their honest thoughts on the games/hardware, and give me lots of videos showing me how it works.
I'm thinking that in the acedemic world, conferences have traditionally been the place to present important papers and get the word out about the latest advances in the field. Do you see this changing as people move to the web (and open access journals) for information on advances in science?
Chris
ROI on small events is both easier to manage and easier to measure.
And yes, blogs did play a part, yes, but not a starring role, many other factors. It's all complex, as even that analysis doesn't go far enough, it didn't even touch on next gen economic troubles...
What happened? Commodization of the industry, the Internet (blogs and other forms of wide and immediate news distribution), the oligarchy nature of the games industry (if a few cold feet, it all implodes), smaller publisher marketing events, the super high costs of attending and the labor union serious added "taxes", the sorry state of the games market and the next gen troubles (PS3 in no man's land, with development issues galore, and the 360 barely breathing mode, with high cost games), the massive marketing monies and effort sapping every ounce of energy, energy that could be more strategically applied. And so on and so forth.
CES (and NAB) be more a trade and sales event, over a media event, so they will be more insulated, people will always show up to sell off to buyers. But even that's not a given, once CE and Broadcast moves more into commodity.
But mostly, having no conferences will prevent me from having realtime conversations with people who I can't get an email or blog response from because you are all too busy with your A, B or C lister rankings!
Stop with the doomspeak please! I want conferences to help me learn stuff and interact with humans.
No Robert, big conferences are certainly *not* dead. Macworld 2006's rather solid growth from 2005 showed that. What are having problems are conferences that are nothing more than exhibition floors and booth babes. Take a look at the conference schedule for a Macworld some time. There's a *ton* of content there that you most certainly are NOT going to get in a blog, not even yours, unless you've figured out a way to replicate a two - day hands on lab in a blog. Or the interactivity of of a 7 hour workshop.
Maybe you're just going to the wrong conferences. Try going to a Macworld a tad earlier than 3-4 hours before it closes on the last day, and see what I mean.
Most of the O'Reilly conferences I've been to, for example, have been good + useful --- but only because of the contacts I've made and the discussions I've had, and not because of the conference sessions.
But that's the point in itself -- where do we build up the face-to-face contacts? You can subscribe to all the social networks around but there is still something about 'touching flesh' with people to create relationships.
I'm a big fan of the BarCamp/UnConference movement but again, it's still got a massive social aspect.
What I wonder is what happens if you hold a conferenc but minus the speakers (be they scheduled or unscheduled/barcamp-esque). You have a room full of people eager to meet eachother.
All you need to do is create an environment that promotes mingling and networking -- something to break the ice and help people make the right contacts.
That's not just an unConference it's a non-conference.
PC Expo in New York City is the one that is so dead you can see headstones. That was an Expo that used all of Jacob Javits convention center at its height, now is reduced to a back room near the food stand.
How the mighty have fallen.
Timothy Graf
http://internetnewsdaily.wordpress.com/
http://www.grafweb.com
http://www.grafwebnetworks.com
Even these so-called unconferences (e.g. BlogOrlando) still require people to get together and discuss their issues face to face.
E3 got out of control. So did COMDEX years ago. Rather than remaining as business conferences, they became short-term amusement parks. Cute, but was that really good for business?
If conferences are truly dead, someone better tell the convention center folks here in Orlando. They still want to expand. Maybe they know something about the market for conferences.
I know you're Mini-Microsoft:
http://qainsight.net/2006/08/01/Six+Reasons+Why...
We've tried to change that by leading by example. Every October we hold Global Learn Day, a round the world "voyage" that features exceptional people from 24 time zones. You can participate on the Net. You can listen on several streams. You can listen on the phone. And, in some places you can listen on an ordinary radio. And, by way of the Long Tail, and participating community radio stations we think more than a million people will hear segments of our event. Help from readers here would be appreciated.
Conferences are only an added value. Should they not be held, no big loss in my opinion.
As for the games, most of them are so early that they shouldn't really be shown at all, or so late in the process that you're better off waiting for a reviewable disc. For the privledge of playing unfinished code, something that in most cases won't even resemble the finished product, you get to stand in line for HOURS ... when I could have just had them send me the game in the mail. There was nothing about the trade show atmosphere that benefitted anyone. E3 was only good for creating a media spectacle, and in the last couple of years, it was even failing in that regard.
The one and only exception is the five or six year window when new hardware is released. That alone would make E3 worth going to, but those press conferences and play-fests could really happen anywhere, and on a publisher's terms.
E3's demise is a welcome one. It will certainly make the lives of games "journalists" a lot easier.
I've been thinking ... I wonder what would happen if publishers took their E3 budgets and spent them by giving away copies of their games to bloggers to write about ...
That analysis you link to is pretty good, but it's goal is to get an even 10 for the story. The most important points are these:
1) EA, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft wanted to pull out. EA was the first to be vocal about it a couple years ago. The point of E3 is not to have Wal-Mart employees dicking around in their booths. They want to reach press and industry partners at E3 and each year that became more difficult and more expensive.
2) Expense is the second big one but is tied into every other point. The information is mostly not public, but with enough googling you can probably find the cost per square foot at E3 in the major halls. It's ridiculous and that's the cost before actually paying for the elaborate booths.
3) The E3 away from E3. This isn't exactly how the author put it, but it's the best way to say it. It's a fact that for the past few years the most attention (from consumers and press alike) was paid to the pre-E3 press events from Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony. This is largely because they are now covered and telecast live over the internet. And upon completion of each one, a plethora of media for all the newest games is available in online press kits.
Those are the big ones, the very large straws the broke the camel's back. Big shows are not passe. There's a decline in big trade-only industry shows, but it's alongside a spike in consumer shows. E3 is diminishing, but PAX is getting bigger and similar shows have popped in everywhere from NYC to cities in Europe. Look at anime, a smaller industry than gaming. They have conventions all over the place and companies pay to set up camp there and talk to their customers. I hardly see a decline in big events, just a decline in ones that aren't run well.
The same one who touted PDC '03 as a "must attend" to stay current. Touted PDC '05 pretty much too.
As he should - he was one of the coordinators/evangelists for it at the time.
And he's the same person who now is employed by a blogging startup.
No, no bias at all.
Call me when TechEd, Lotusphere, OracleWorld, MacWorld, LinuxWorld, Cebit are canceled. Then you may START to have some data on which to draw a conclusion.
Also,I rather doubt the CEO you use in your example would want to advocate canceling the Detroit Auto Show, one of THE major trade shows for the auto industry. This example also shows your complete lack of understanding of the trade show industry in general and the auto industry specificially. The "influencers" as you are wont to call them, DON'T frequent Lutz's blog. They are not going to go there then write about the next GM concept car. My car porn magazines rarely make mention of Lutz's blog, they have PLENTY of coverage of the Auto Shows.
You would do well to stop drawing such overarching conclusions based on what you see in your insulated world.
A conference that's big just for big's sake *is* ridiculous. That's ego-stroking.
A conference that grows because more people want to attend, teach and exhibit there every year becomes big for the right reason: Demand. The part that so many fail at is meeting that demand in a useful function.
The problem right now is, most conferences are locationally biased with no valid reason whatsoever, and miss out on a lot of chances for a different attendee audience because of it.
It's not that I disagree with the assertion that big conferences are no longer the place to hear the news. It's the black and white nature of the sentiment that concerns me. As other comments have pointed out, there are still reasons to attend conferences big and small, not the least of which is, uh, actually talking to people with whom you have something in common. Of course, every conference could be better. So could every press release, blog post, podcast and vlog.
Just because something is not perfect doesn't mean it has NO value. OK, maybe E3's time has come, but why does that have to mean the death of all big conferences? Likewise, citizen journalism is remarkably compelling, but I'm not giving up my subscription to the Wall Street Journal any time soon.
People - and businesses - have multiple objectives they're trying to meet and there's room (actually, need) for a variety of means of achieving them.
My thoughts exactly. Big conferences aren't dead. Big *Media* types of Conferences are. But Trade, Academic, Publishing, Broadcasting, Medical and Government conferences are all big, and getting bigger.
E3 is a whole thing unto itself, I dunno if it's any trend indicator, other than the fact that show-offish Amusement Parkish Conference spectacles are a dying breed.
Ain't no such thing as a Long Tail, it's all a random blipping spectrum beat chart. Big, small, big, non, big, dead big, small, big, big, dead small, non, small, big.
So, uh, yeah, small is good. Small gets amplified pretty easily.
So,are you amending your postion to be: "Big conference's in Vegas are dead"? Because frankly, I don't see your reply as being very convincing.
And to the general blog - no - big conferences will never die out - the blogs will only enhance the experience - not replace. Similar to bookstore and online store
Dr Nazli
Having a flashy booth and a big spectacle to try to get the attention of the guy with the camera walking by? Why bother? A blog gets you more mileage with less effort (and expense).
http://www.chaosmanorreviews.com/open_archives/...
I'm talking about a specific thing here.
Go and read my reports of my mom's death on my blog and get a life. Can't we talk about one part of the blog world at a time without getting freaking attacked?
The normal industry pass wouldn't gain access to these panels, and, even though media could get free vouchers, they never seemed to get much media exposure.
I managed to attend a couple of them in 2005, and they seemed fairly interesting. They basically could be described as a poor-man's GDC [and with more of a business/publisher focus].
The cab line at most hotels on the strip during a major conference in Vegas can be a bit lengthy. So, according to Scoble, this is why big conferences should be dead.
As for blogs filling the gaps.. .what would Endgaget write about if they couldn't cover CES? ;-)
And if we go back through Roberts archives it seems he had a week long woody while attending CES. he couldn't stop talking about it.
And the rest "panel of experts" type of conferences were never really about the conferences per se- but about the personal interaction, the hang, the after parties - the social scene. blogs don't displace that.
I never get to go to conferences. Too much paperwork in expenses and approvals.
I do want to hook up with people, see whats going on, and some things still need you to be there. Like cars and houses and boats.
Software? Not sure about that one apart from people getting an ego buzz presenting to 2000 people.
Robert, you're still glorious. You troll for comments like a fiend, snark like hell to get them really going, then fire up the "Can't we all just get along" lines.
I still say you're one of the most brilliantly ruthless marketers that ever lived, and Dvorak can't even BEGIN to touch your mad l33t hit generation skillz, and you're a better writer to boot.
Machiavellian man, Machiavellian.
It's great to get away from your coffee-stained keyboard and actually connect with humanity.
LayZ--your comments at #48 made me laugh out loud.
I'd love to hear your comments on my July 31 post.
In my best AOL dialect...oh oh me too. Me too.
Star bloated egos? Will always have that, it's the fuel Wilshire runs on, just accelerated now that the biggie stars have productional studios. But if have great writing, move beyond the SAG top 1%, and to the rest of the 99%. Stars are not always the salvation, not at those prices.
And 'franchise mega-writer' only really applies to TV, writers in Film are lucky to even get an invite to their own Premiere, and oft times banned from the set; studio buys the script, writer gets lost, Director gets credit. TV has moved beyond the dreadful episodic sitcomy, and into the mass drama and DVD Full Seasons; with TV you develop more of a real relationship, over the Hollywood one-night stands.
But both are wholly separate issues from the shaky-cam YouTubers and vbloggers, no 'franchise' or 'writers' here. But this is an old one-note song, first they said blogs will replace journalism, citizen media will overcome the old creaky publishing stalwarts -- now the switch is on Hollywood and Burbank, after buncha geeks tinker around with Digital Video Cameras. But endlessly rambling stick-microphone-in-face interview shows the best they have to offer, hence, forever blowing bubbles...
Just because you can, and have the tools, still doesn't mean anyone is listening or that it's any good.
http://www.deathcabforcutie.com/
The only thing I would add is that I think it's sad how much writers are not given credit. Everything starts with the writing, and the "farm system" will likely never realize that. Alas, it's too bad the majority in Hollywood don't realize that, either. There are shows that succeed almost by pure luck, that have good writing. Seinfeld being the best example. If NBC went purely on ratings it would have never made it on the fall schedule. Unfortunately, Arrested Development didn't get the same committment. Far and away one of the best written shows in a long time. Thankfully for many writers, outlets like HBO and Showtime can take chances and give these talented folks room to work ("Sopranos", "Entourage"...)
The farm system will likely never get to that point. They are going for the quick win, and the companys that host them are simply going for the high number of ad click throughs. They will care little about the quality of the content posted, as long as people click the ads.
Sorry, nothing snarky to add. Brooke, I'm likely as passionate as you are about the importance of writing in the entertainment industry. The difference is that you are much closer to it than I am. It all starts with the writing. The geeks don't get that. They appear to think it starts with the technology.
Thank you for your comments.
Comments can be sent to me thorough my web-master, Michael (which is on the site).
I need a new web design with an obvious comments sections.
Robert, all apologies for placing non-specific User Generated Comments (comments directed towards my post) in your comments section, but as always--thank you for generating such an engaging discussion.
In one of your other sections, Jim Kerr commented on "bridging the divide" between new media companies and "old media"--the entertainment industry. I look forward to your comments--and the comments of others-- on this issue.
Despite the fact that Cliff Blezinski has a blog, I don't really feel like I can talk to the guy.
Amen. But I would add, even if they realize it, they don't have the infrastructure to support it, nor will they honor all the WGA schedules, nor will the real pro's be inclined to play their reindeer games.
The "farm system" will go for the celebrity A-List flash and the YouTubby viral flash-in-pan stupidity; eternal gimmicks to get traffic and hits; the blog template model -- dissing anyone outside the circled circles, those who 'don't get it'.
"Bridging the divide"? Just one problem, no bridges to even connect. There really isn't any such thing as a "new media company". A differing format, a differing distributional method, makes not a media company. The better the "new" becomes the more it becomes "old". And the "old" can simply use the same formats as the "new", evolution not revolution. The "new economy" was a full-scale illusion, as is the "new media company".
Forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air...