Beyond ROI: can we measure what an event does to people?
A new festival is asking attendees whether exposure to different ideas and perspectives has changed their outlook. Should we follow its lead?
We’re very good at measuring events.
How many people came. How satisfied they were. How many meetings took place, how many leads were generated, the amount of revenue generated … all that jazz. All useful stuff, don’t get me wrong.
But there is one rather big metric we don't seem to measure quite so much: What did the event actually do to the people who attended it?
A new “festival of ideas” in Somerset is attempting to find out...
Photo by Marta Longas on Pexels
Photo by Marta Longas on Pexels
The Big Brue, taking place at the Hauser & Wirth Somerset gallery this weekend (September 19-20), is turning its audience into something of an experiment. Attendees will be asked to complete tests and questionnaires before and after the festival to see whether exposure to different ideas and perspectives has changed their outlook.
The ambition is not simply to find out whether people enjoyed themselves. It is to see whether they have become more open, empathetic, optimistic or tolerant of views they disagree with.
One of the organisers, neuroscientist and educator Beau Lotto, has previously carried out experiments looking at whether experiences such as the wonder of a Cirque du Soleil performance can change how people behave towards others.
It’s a fascinating idea - and it got me thinking about whether business events could do something similar.
Take a corporate leadership conference, for example. We might measure attendance, satisfaction, engagement with the event app and whether delegates enjoyed the keynote.
But if the purpose of the event is to change how people lead, collaborate or respond to a particular business challenge, are we asking whether any of that actually happened?
If the point of an event, such as an association conference, is to advance a profession, challenge established thinking or debate an issue, why not ask delegates what they think before they arrive - and then ask them again afterwards?
Not necessarily to prove that the event has successfully changed their minds. Sometimes the most valuable outcome might simply be that someone leaves with a more nuanced view.
There is a tendency in business events to surround people with like-minded individuals, put them in rooms with speakers who broadly share their worldview and then congratulate ourselves when everyone agrees. But genuine learning shouldn’t be comfortable.
The Big Brue is deliberately bringing together people with opposing views, with the belief that conflict can be productive if it takes place in an environment that encourages curiosity, compassion and learning. It's a useful starting point for any event.
What if we asked attendees:
- Did you hear an argument you hadn't considered before?
- Did anything you heard change your view?
- What are you going to do differently as a result?
- Did the event make you more curious about an issue rather than more certain about it?
Those are harder questions to answer. But arguably they get much closer to the point of bringing people together in the first place.
Of course, this kind of thing won’t be relevant for every event. Not every event should have to prove its worth through a scientific experiment.
And then there’s the fact that measuring human responses is considerably more complicated than counting registrations or scanning badges. But the principle is worth exploring.
Imagine being able to show not just what delegates did at an event, but what they thought, felt, learned or subsequently did differently because they were there.
For some events, that might mean a simple pre- and post-event question. For others, it could mean following up weeks or months later to see whether knowledge was applied or behaviour changed.
And perhaps the ultimate measure isn't even whether an event changed someone's mind – but whether it made them question it.
Because if we're serious about creating events that educate, inspire, connect and influence, shouldn't we be interested in what happens after the delegate walks out of the room?