Getting Attendee Feedback: A Combination of Methods is Still a More Effective Way to Go

After getting the 65th Summer Meeting* for the Chain Link Fence Manufacturers Institute (the association for which I serve as Executive Vice President) done, I am looking at the results of the post-event attendee surveys we sent the past three years.

Author: Mark Levin

As I am doing that, I am asking myself three questions:

1. Do we have a statistically valid number of responses to reasonably assume the data provides actionable information?
2. In addition to the response rate, did we get a ‘representative’ return within each of our major member categories or demographics?
3. As we are going to be in Montreal this year, does the uniqueness of the destination reduce the credibility of any of the previous years’ data regarding meeting preferences?

There was actually another question I asked myself: is anyone actually going to read these attendee surveys and do anything other than say, ‘Very interesting’.

Here is something very important for all of us to consider before attempting to gather and analyse attendee responses to our event surveys: regardless of the method you want to use to get your attendee input, you MUST pre-determine how you are going to ‘close the loop’ on attendee/member participation.

One of the biggest reasons people do not respond to these types of surveys is that they do not believe their input will make any difference. Notice that I said they do not ‘believe’ their input matters. In many cases, that is not true. Most association executives and meeting planners do read attendee surveys and, when appropriate, make recommended changes or improvements. The problem is that no one told them that their input was acted upon.

Of course, we are not obligated to act on comments or recommendations just because of one comment, or even a few people suggesting the same thing (we still have to identify that statistically valid number of responses.) But we are obligated to tell people what we did with their input! If we do not, there is no incentive for them to give us their input in the future.
 

Some New Challenges for Associations and the Hospitality Industry

We have to use the technology available to us in the 21st century to close this communications gap in our organisations. Here are a few suggestions:

• If you are using some technologically based engagement techniques such as apps, QR codes, or live polling to get quick, on-site feedback, sending an automated ‘Thank you for your response’ is just acknowledging that their input has gotten through. You should still use the information you captured (person’s name, contact information, and response) to personalise and customise your follow-up. Even if you do that a week (or more) after your event, you can send a message saying something like: ‘Thank you, again, for participating in our on-site polling at last week’s conference. We wanted to let you know that your suggestions were sent to our Conference Services team, and they will add them to their discussions when planning next year’s event. We hope we will see you there.’
   
• Do not forget that you can combine old and new attendee input techniques to help you offer a variety of ways for attendees to provide their feedback. Why not use an old technique such as focus groups, facilitated by a newer technology, such as Zoom/ video? You could invite a specific demographic (i.e. first-time attendees) from a broad geographic range (worldwide) to participate. They will get the feeling of meeting others they may not have met at the event and also feel as though they have been involved at somewhat higher level in your organisation.

(Just a reminder: Focus group input can be very valuable for identifying areas that can be improved, but it is not a statistically valid survey technique, since the nature of group discussions means one attendee’s opinion can influence the responses of others.)

• Be careful about having input from groups that will skew your data. If you are not already doing it, be sure to code your system so it allows you to identify your organisation’s leadership group (Officers, Board, Conference Committee). Isolate those responses and match them to the responses of the other attendees. When included in the overall survey results, the leadership group members tend to respond at a higher rate than others and they also look at the event from a somewhat different perspective. It is interesting to see the differences in the responses.

Regardless of which techniques you use to get attendee input, pre-plan what your follow-up and acknowledgement system is going to be. The frustration many of us have had in getting good feedback on our events is partly our own fault. If we have not established a reputation for using attendee input constructively, and ‘closing the loop’ on participant feedback, then we are likely missing out on a great source of information and opinions that can improve the quality of our events.

(*Note: No, it is not my 65th CLFMI Summer Meeting. I have been around for quite a while in the association management business, but not that long!)

Mark Levin, CAE, CSP has more than 20 years of experience as an association executive and is also an internationally-known speaker and consultant to the nonprofit and association community. He currently serves as Executive Vice President of the Chain Link Fence Manufacturers Institute, an international trade association, and as President of B.A.I., Inc., his speaking and consulting firm.

Published by Meeting Media Company, the publisher of Headquarters Magazine (HQ) – a leading international publication based in Brussels, serving the global MICE industry and association community.