Do Hybrid Events and Meetings Really Work?
I am very excited that some in-person events and meetings are starting to emerge from the dark days of the past two years. This is a sign that nonprofit organizations are more confident about the future and are actively moving closer to full operations. Hybrid event and meeting formats have been adopted to facilitate this transition and support constituents with different comfort zones. However, hybrid formats are best viewed as a transition phase rather than the new normal or a long-term option for the future.
Hybrid is a fancy term for blending. In this case the blending occurs when event and meeting formats are expanded to include both virtual and in-person attendance. Blended formats can be effective if they are used for transition purposes to help organizations move through periods of evolving change and uncertainty to build momentum and gain confidence and trust of participants.
However, after planning and participating in multiple hybrid events and meetings this year, I believe these formats are not sustainable for the long-term future. The best approach is to treat hybrid events and meetings as a stepping-stone to the future. Recognize that they are temporary accommodations and not the new normal.
In the early stages of the pandemic, we were amazed at how quickly we pivoted to a new world of virtual meetings. This led us to assume that when circumstances improved, we could easily just layer on virtual formats seamlessly on top of in-person formats and get the best of both experiences. We did not anticipate that these formats might be most effective when they do not overlap.
When blended in-person and virtual event and meeting formats are used, both formats suffer to accommodate an approach that attempts to equalize the experience for in-person and virtual attendees. This often causes compromises to be made in presentation formats, time allotments, and scheduling. These compromises will even affect topics, content, and presentation styles, while also impacting opportunities to network and make connections. Efforts quickly become counter-productive with watered-down results.
Another consideration is staff capacity to support two simultaneous formats. These two formats together might appear synergistic, but in reality, the workload for staff will increase exponentially. And staff might not be able to support both formats with the same commitment to excellence.
Planning Tip – Post crisis, it is important for nonprofits to message and treat virtual attendance options at in-person events and meetings as an accommodation and not a regular option. This focuses event and meeting planning and design to facilitate a single preferred format. Messaging should be clear that virtual attendance options at in-person meetings is an accommodation for special circumstances due to illness, travel restrictions, and other participant emergencies. This allows staff to plan for a low priority virtual option with very reduced usage.
For events and meetings that occur repeatedly throughout the year, such as Board and committee meetings, consider alternating formats between virtual and in-person attendance. This will allow you to design the agendas and content that work best for each format.
If there is a strong desire to accommodate virtual as well as in-person attendance, consider separate schedules with limited overlap of content. This approach can work well for educational events. For example, the in-person portion could run for the first two days of a conference, with keynote presentations only streamed near the end of day-two. The conference can then pivot to virtual for the remaining days. Splitting-up the conference will give attendees options. This will also allow staff and presenters to focus on one type of audience, building out content and adjusting presentation methods to meet one set of attendees.
