From every direction in the events world you hear that the secret of a memorable experience is putting attendees — and their needs — at the centre and building around them. In most cases, though, that translates into a design process that starts from the organisers’ idea of the attendees, or from information gathered at some earlier event where they, or people like them, were asked for an opinion.
Very often, in fact, we still tend to think that evaluation questionnaires and surveys are tools to use during an event or at the end of it, to gather judgements to draw on in future.
But what if we started moving that process of enquiry, those conversations with our audiences, much further up the chain of building an event — far enough that surveys and polls become the starting note from which everything else is built?
That would activate what, in a more structured and complete form, is called co-design, and which can be one of the strategic resources available to organisers facing an increasingly competitive events world, with audiences that are increasingly demanding because they are more mature, more aware and more intent on investing their time and money purposefully.
Bringing attendees into the process of building an event from the earliest stages can help meet their needs without complicating life for the organisation and the organisers — on the contrary, it optimises resources, reduces waste, and can even be a way of producing results people value more. A win-win mechanism that seems impossible to ignore.
So why is it not standard practice? Because co-designing seriously and in a structured way is also hard work, costly (it takes resources to manage and coordinate, for one thing) and can become frustrating and difficult, as all processes requiring close collaboration between very different people tend to be.
So it is hard work either way? In a sense yes, but since co-design is not an on/off switch but a continuum, you can measure it out and take it in sustainable quantities, activating some processes without being overwhelmed by them.
How? By starting where we began, with the basics: by asking attendees what they want and what they consider important, through polls and surveys distributed by newsletter, app or social media, to identify relevant themes, preferences and content.
Doing even just that — a relatively simple, manageable activity — brings at least three substantial benefits:
1. Involvement brings satisfaction
Involving attendees creates the conditions for greater satisfaction with the event, because:
- the needs they express have a better chance of being met precisely.
- their requests are usually more realistic: feeling involved, attendees tend to be more aware and to align what they want with the resources available.
Better alignment between what the audience expects and what the event is trying to achieve also encourages engagement and increases return on investment, which matters to any corporate organiser.
2. Involvement brings collaboration
We have seen it already with requests: when people feel directly involved they are more reasonable and more collaborative. That means they are more willing to step in to make things go well, which usually helps everything go in exactly that direction. Of course you cannot expect to solve or prevent every problem, but if everyone is rowing the same way you can handle rougher water than usual.
3. Involvement brings promotion
We have seen it several times, including when we looked at event marketing and promotion: attendees who feel involved and engaged by an event are its first and most effective promoters. Once they consider the event — at least in part — theirs, something they contributed to actively and knowingly, people are generally more willing to lend their voice, their face and their relationships to the success of a project they have committed to. And there is no promotion more effective than the kind done by people who put themselves into it and spread the word.
Can all this come from surveys and polls alone? Yes, if they are well designed, carried out with equal care and distributed strategically, through a set of channels that can widen progressively, like the ripples that spread when you throw a stone into a pond.
To prompt quality participation it is worth starting with the people closest to us, the ones we know best, including how they think and behave. They will give us the first valuable opinions, through the most direct channels we keep open with them, such as newsletters or the app.
For those further away but equally important to involve, we can use more structured channels, where the tool itself does some of the prompting. Think of gamification, which can support this kind of enquiry by adding elements of play and enjoyment that can be powerful levers for motivating people and getting them to act.
In short, there are many tools for getting people involved, and good design helps identify the best ones. But good design — the kind that will shape the future of events — will certainly be more and more participatory. So why not start now?