Welcome to Snafu, a newsletter about authentic selling in a chaotic world.
Events are a competitive advantage. They create connections faster than anything else can. But most events follow a few typical formats, even while there are simple ways to make the experience more engaging.
If you’re enjoying Snafu, it would mean the world to me if you would share it!
Was it sent to you? Subscribe here.
Three unusual event formats
Last week’s Responsive Conference was the best event I’ve produced. Attendees have been raving about the experience, my team bonded in new ways, and I walked away without the post-conference crash that too often accompanies producing a big event.
One of the things we did especially well this year was to incorporate alternative event formats into the conference format. Specifically, there are three atypical formats that I think every event organizer should incorporate.
Fishbowl
A fishbowl is a panel with 1-3 additional seats on stage. Your audience is encouraged to sit in that seat and join the speakers in conversation.
Why this works:
Fishbowls challenge the audience to stay engaged. Every time there’s a new participant in the hot seat, the audience – even if they weren’t fully engaged before – has the opportunity to reengage with the conversation.
This format also adds variety for the speakers. Most panels fail because panelists talk to each other about pre-planned topics or things they know too well. Regularly adding new people to the conversation changes the dynamic with each new attendee.
Best-case scenarios:
A fishbowl can work with four seats on stage, where one seat is empty for participants. At its best, though, there are five or six seats available, of which two are available to participants or the facilitators.
This session can work in a fixed seating format, but it works even better when the audience is literally sitting around the speakers, while the speakers are facing each other in the middle. A literal fishbowl shape added to the intimacy of the experience for everyone involved.
Considerations:
You need a strong facilitator – The first consideration is that a strong facilitator has to set the context for this format and keep people moving in and out of the hot seat (or seats). This facilitator needs to describe how a fishbowl works and encourage attendees to join in. The facilitator can occupy one of the seats on stage throughout or facilitate from the side.
The audience needs to be engaged – a fishbowl only works if attendees participate. This requires the facilitator to encourage attendees to jump in. Some gentle facilitation may be required to make this happen.
The people on stage need to be engaged – this isn’t an issue for most speakers, but participant speakers should know that this won’t be a typical panel. Most speakers don’t want to phone in the experience – they want to enjoy the experience! But a fishbowl is not a panel, and some speakers may be hesitant.
Interview-in-the-Round
An interview-in-the-round is a session where each speaker interviews the next speaker. It works like this:
- Speaker 1 interviews Speaker 2
- Speaker 2 interviews Speaker 3
- Speaker 3 interviews Speaker 4
- Speaker 4 interviews Speaker 1
Here’s an example from Responsive Conference 2019.
Why this works:
Attendees want to hear from the speakers. In this format, they get 15 minutes uninterrupted from each speaker (assuming a 60-minute session), with another 15 minutes where that speaker conducts an interview. Assuming good speakers, it is always a good experience for attendees.
Best case scenario:
Speakers have an intimate experience on stage, which then translates into the attendees’ experience of the session. Through intimate one-on-one interviews, they are able to go places that they wouldn’t in a larger group.
Considerations:
Unpredictable outcome – The “outcome” from an interview-in-the-round is unpredictable. There isn’t someone in charge of summarizing the experience for attendees, so event organizers might feel uncomfortable with the experience.
Speaker egos – The problem with this format comes down to speakers’ egos. It isn’t a common format compared to panels, and as a result, speakers feel like they won’t be able to get on stage as much as they expect to. This isn’t factual – in an interview-in-the-round, speakers generally get more stage time than in a typical 4-person panel. But from an appearance perspective, they often feel like they’ll get less limelight.
I’ve never seen attendees dislike this format, but speakers may have to be persuaded.
Unconferences
I define an unconference as any event where the attendees set the agenda. I’ve written a full article on how to run an unconference, so start there.
Why this works:
Unconferences work because there is always more collective intelligence in a group of attendees than in a single person on stage. An unconference makes use of that collective knowledge by allowing the attendees to determine the agenda.
Best case scenario:
The best-case scenario for an unconference is that it channels the focus of an entire group, and everyone walks away reenergized and with several new ideas.
Considerations:
The problem with an unconference by definition is that speakers and facilitators aren’t the highlight. This makes selling tickets against name-brand speakers and brands nearly impossible. An unconference can be a great experience for attendees, but it is much harder to monetize.
Gatherings and events are a competitive advantage in business, especially in an age of AI. Our loneliness epidemic and the enduring popularity of books like The Art of Gathering both demonstrate that humans want to gather in new, interesting, and immersive ways.
Any kind of gathering is better than not, but panels and happy hours need not be the only way we do so, and these three alternative formats provide some welcome variation.