* Read our objectives for the event and tell us: what happened actually? why were there differences?
* leading thought space - 2, 3, 4 (2)
given other conferences (bland ppt presentations where they don,t say anything)
not huge amounts of really interesting stuff, not enough controversy or exchange of forward thinking views
level to which some of the topics where discussed was a bit broad - step further intellectually
room ran out of steam by final session
reflection on number of events already in the space - hard to be the leading one when there are so many out there
* celebrate league tables - 3,4 (2)
lots of people went to the after party good metric for success
*provide platform for n/w - 3,5 (3)
*Additional Objectives- long range goal is to create this as an asset that sits on the balance sheet and becomes something regarded as one of the key assets - valuable, recurring, profit center for the company. so anyone looking at the company sees it as that. (3) definitely - put it on the map, and anyone would see it was successful and good long term thing
What concerned was that it was a huge distraction for the sales and research team - jury is still out on impact to quarterly numbers. For short run impact it was distracting, however, we will see how things roll in over time.
What worked? What didn’t? Why?
what worked = tony's system worked, structure of team = only worked when number of questions changed halfway through session
captain role not necessarily needed
readers and proofers in pairs
one person to work with distiller was good
Respondent best job = David Sandalow
carbon trust - good
what didn't work = more space for the respondent to walk around
didn't work when more than one person was talking to the respondent
knowledgable view or floor discussion
splitting floor into sections was difficult
distiller area health and safety problem
would have been better for clear way table had switched from question 1 to 2 - sub buckets or sub folders in system
multiple editor was a struggle
headings would be good - notepad was too much detail
- Company in some ways is wonderful - and I don't know our clients understood just how young our people are. On one hand - i'm paying 50,000 for this 23 year old? Or on the other hand, every one is incredibly smart and capable… You throw the doors open when you open up and ask the people to host tables.
- On the press side - we were so selective, we made no effort to publicize and turn people away. Wonder if that was the right strategy- Great to get coverage in reuters / bloomberg / IHT - maybe we should have let more people in the room.
*Was concerned that reporters would come and abide by Chatham House - one reporter from Reuters was frustrated but did abide by it.
- would consider opening up next year
- One person was sufficient - especially having so few reporters.
- Press packet - no probably do not need to have it
- One of the strong materials in the event were the handouts - the pie charts were a great resource for people and reporters. Almost every stat questions already answered and the league tables booklet and then the press release as well.
- Recommend putting up the fact sheets on the microsites for download and have them for download
- Staff room - absolutely critical for the stuff, having a quiet place to work
- Distiller - I thought we got better as it went along. The challenge was working with the respondent - the respondents who could David Sandalow, knew less about the subject matter but was probably the best - also because he has done it before. Was willing to sit there and look at the input of the distillers, looking over and listening and willing to take what the distillers gave him. Truman was the exact opposite, shouting suggestions, he did it two times - the first time was pretty directive. The second time it didn't work as well asked if could take a more reactive role, and Ethan said… fantastic. How does the respondent trust and make sense of the chaos. if they know less they are more open, vs. have agenda for is.
*Whoever was in the HotSeat the lead distiller - things get even more garbled in the handoff. Why not have lead analyst and say what was said… OR best of all worlds and have the moderator sit there and do it… one too many cooks. When you have a capable moderator why not have them get up and share what audience had to say. Then the audience feedback coudl be more feedback…
*Respondent was a bit of an awkward fit
- There was not enough of a chance for the panel to react to the audience - feedback
- Questions - brilliant and fantastic. They worked OK. The challenge was the carbon session, because they are technical stuff and got even more difficult and when you broke the room into three. Maybe break the room into no more than two parts to make life easier for the distillers. Keep it simple.
* What would you do differently next time?
consistent distiller team
downside distillers didn't get to mix on tables
panel discussing what respondent said only 3-4 minutes needed for distilling to be completed
so panel discussing floor points would have been good
David Sandalow - already had his points and worked tables into his framework
* Any personal comments, notes, suggestions, etc
not too hard of a job
advance notice (training week) and then small refresher day before
would voting have helped with engagement and variety
ML comments waaaay too long. Thanking the staff should have been done at an after party (like for a show) (thank the author and the producer) - not in front of clients, and the room was 3/4 empty by that point.
It was not the right way to go.
Something more formal afterwards to thank the staff - pub aftewars
ML's closing comment gave a lasting impression - and it was tending to the self-indulgent (the glacier memory)
To a certain extent it is the ML show, and he is really our best asset
the Heidrick and Struggles thing was very poorly negotiated deal and ended up being a big pain for the research staff - where the implications on research side were not thinking about
they got ridiculous value through this - tapping into our clients
the amount paid should have just gotten the research - they should have paid 3-4 times that
