I am always looking out for great speakers to come and impart their expertise at Like Minds, and one of the ways that I do this is by reading a lot of blog posts by a range of different people. It’s easier to find an expert on an issue by searching for text than video. However more often that not – in fact, around 90% of the time – I find that the great writers I research turn out to be very poor at speaking.

The peculiar thing about this is that it isn’t just the writers. Even people who I talk to face-to-face and have engaging conversations with often end up being very poor when it comes to public speaking.

Here’s what I realised: both the great conversationalists and the great writers aren’t actually bad at communicating, and they aren’t bad at speaking and engaging – it’s just that when they get put on a stage, they go into presentation mode and loose all the charisma, passion and warmth that they had before they went on.

It’s a type of stage fright that turns interesting social people into boring broadcast people. But luckily, you can get out of it.

Learning how to get off the stage, when you’re on stage

As I said, I find most people to be very interesting in a one-on-one or small group conversation, and the reason why is because it is a conversation. We are used to giving not just words but non verbal communication, our attention, our passion, our sympathy, and more, within conversations. But put someone on stage and all of sudden it becomes a presentation to them.

So the trick is learning how to act off stage while you are on stage. And to help you do that, here’s five really easy quick musts for you to follow:

1. Make it a participation not a presentation. The moment you can free your mind from having to present, and instead can focus on having the pleasure to participate in an experience means it’s no longer about YOU. You realise that actually, it’s not about the quality of what you say, it’s the quality of how people feel. So don’t make it all about what you say – get some audience interaction – make it a conversation in which you are just one of the parties.

In fact, one of the first things you should always do when you begin a participation is to get people to participate by a show of hands, clap, or something similar. It makes people feel involved.

2. Tell stories. It’s funny how many people who go on about story telling in media don’t actually tell stories. Instead, they bore us with boring images of others telling a story. And if you think it’s about how well you tell the story, you’ve missed the point. Story telling is really about providing a clear example that someone plays out in their mind as you are telling it.

If I told you now that I spent yesterday eating bananas, what have you just thought of? That mental involvement – you actually picturing a banana – is far more valuable than me showing you a picture of a banana because it means that you mind is active not passive, and that means that you are participating.

3. Reveal your wounds. When someone talks about how they got it right all the time, we feel inferior. But when someone reveals how they failed a dozen times before they got there, it inspires us and endears us to the speaker.

Now don’t go trashing yourself – but the ability to use weakness once or twice in a talk to help people identify with you is incredibly powerful.

4. Be brief. The old speaker proverb goes, “blessed are the short winded, for they shall be invited back.” Being brief not only makes the organisers happy, but it shows you respect the minds of people enough to keep things precise and not laborious, and that you credit them as being intelligent enough for you to say things once, not a dozen times in the same talk.

Also remember that after 30 minutes people are hearing more from their bottoms than from you.

5. Rehearse. A lot. Whoever thought that rehearsal made something inauthentic wasn’t a good speaker themselves. We rehearse everything in our lives so a speech shouldn’t be different. Rehearsing means that you have got the speech so automated in your mind that you can let go of the notes and instead focus on the participants – because they are the ones that matter.

And if your eyes are off the notes, then it means they can be on the faces in the crowd. In fact, what I do is look at as many people as possible in the eye.

It’s not public speaking

Hopefully – if you can put these five practical tips together – then you’ll be able to get off the stage while being on stage. But that’s the practical part.

The deeper part is to realise that it’s not about public speaking at all. The phrase in fact reeks of broadcast. What I’m more interested in is personally imparting. Imparting means that I take something that is mine, and using the practical points above to be a selfless as possible, I impart what I have to others as personally as possib;le.

The masters of this – like many of our Like Minds Alumni – have the ability to talk to hundreds of people in a crowd, but make each one feel like they are talking to them.

Your Leading Thoughts

Before you go off and become a marvellous, awe-inspiring public speaker, take a moment to add to this list – what is your top public speaking tip?

This is the cone of learning by Edgar Dale, which says that we remember 10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear, but 70% of what we say and 90% of what we say and do.

This is great news for event producers, right? Because now all we need to do is get our attendees talking and they will start learning more.

Well, it should be great news, but it isn’t. Unfortunately, most events focus on people listening and they are unlikely to change this because we have adopted the view that the best events are those who have the most and best speakers. We don’t have the view that the best events are those which help you learn.

In Let Attendees be Participants, I discussed the major root of this being an obsession with new content. On Twitter we love the newest thing, and it is new content that really drives the Twitter ecosystem. No wonder then that when these same people get together in a room, it’s to hear more of the new stuff.

The reality is, however, that whilst events run in this way might have buzz and get more people along, they don’t help people learn. And ultimately, the only reason people go to the event is about association rather than learning. Essentially, these events become networking events rather than learning or thought leadership events.

I can’t emphasis this enough. Scientifically: if an event is just you listening to speakers, you aren’t learning, and they are ripping you off.

How To Talk

But enough doom and gloom and onto your thoughts and some creative room for us to brainstorm.

My question is this: how should we be talking at events?

At Like Minds Conference last October we did a 20 minute insight, and then we would ask the crowd to turn to the people next to them and discuss what they just heard. In addition, we have facilitators going around who sparked conversation and helped people reflect on the content.

Whilst this was certainly better than the panels that we’ve had last time, I think there is too much start-and-stop for people to really get into things.

What I want to try at our event is having a 2 hour session, during which we will have a number of 20 minute insights, a few interviews, and then time at the end to digest it and reflect the key learnings. But enough of me:

Your Leading Thoughts

• When have you learnt the most at an event? Why did you learn the most then?
• How do you think, as being someone in the crowd, you’d like to interact with content and talk?

Most of you know that I run Like Minds along with Andrew Ellis. It’s actually the place where the majority of the discussion on this blog finds it’s actualisation – putting the ideas and insights shared here into practice at our Conference and also our community building.

This last one was exceptional. It superseded our event in February in every way (which was the best event I’d ever run and went down very well), but the biggest success was that this event was a HUGE risk on a few fronts. I actually, on the first day when I opened the conference, listed these.

The Risks

1. There were no superstars. Considering my post on “Why Social Events Aren’t Social“, I had to swallow my own medicine and not allow ego to slip in. This was risky because a large number of people go to events for names.

2. It was about learning, not buzz. Our previous events were very buzzy, so to then opt for a format which I knew would create less buzz, but deliver more lasting learning through immersive learning experiences was also risky because it meant fewer people talking about us and therefore buying tickets or participating online.

3. Two days means three days out of the office. Given that we expanded it to two days, this meant a day of travelling on the Wednesday too and that meant fewer people might come because, lets face it, so many still are bound to their 9-5, bill by the hour mentality, rather than billing for value.

But what happened over those three days was just phenomenal. Come the end of Friday afternoon, I could stand up and list these:

The Results

1. There were superstars – THE PEOPLE. Turns out that people really think highly of Like Minds, which is incredibly humbling, and our past events have done a good job for forming a strong culture that meant each person added such life to the event. For instance, Stephen Bateman, who I’m pictured with, travelled over 3,000 from America to join us. That is humbling. And what you can’t see is that behind the camera is 200 people clapping at his contribution.

2. People want to learn and meet new people more than get buzzed up or hang on the words of gurus. People SERIOUSLY got into the learning spirit of things, and all day you could see that our new format of Immersive workshops, Lunch Time Talks, and then keynotes in the afternoon meant people got far, far, far more value that they would’ve previously.

3. Our advocates made the time. Only a third of the people who came booked one day. Two thirds came for the whole two days, plus the two evening events, and they saw it as a major investment. Unfortunately, we had far fewer local people this time, which personally insults me because they were the ones who wanted it to be more practical this time (which we did). Makes me think of Jesus who said “no prophet is without honour, except in his home country” – in other words, you’ll get support from everyone but those who benefit the most from you locally. I need to find a way to crack this.

The Roundup

Events must shift their focus and let attendees be participants. I learnt  a lot of things this week, which we’ll discuss in the weeks to come, but the top learning for me is that people really are now tired of the weary conference scene. There must be more than just innovation – there needs to be a revolution, a reformation, a re-evaluation of events – without which, I fear many will die. People want learning, they don’t want ego anymore.

As Robin Dickinson wrote almost a year ago that “Room-filling [is the] last thing a post-Internet leader does“. We must take note.

But the biggest thing? It was the like minds in the room that made it. I fully confess that even on Wednesday night, I still wasn’t sure how it was going to go with our new format. It just goes to show, like I say, that Like Minds is the Like Minds, not Andrew and myself.

Your Leading Thoughts

• If you participated in Like Minds, either physically or virtually, what was your top takeaway? Did you appreciate the risk and did you benefit from the results?
• As we’re all ones on the inside of these changes from attendance to participation and watching to learning, what do these comments mean for you? What are you thinking about participation right now?

Fantastic photo by the incredible Harry Duns

A lot of this comes from what I’ve learned from Jeff Hurt and Dave Lutz at Velvet Chainsaw. It seems like common sense that an event should be about talking and learning rather than just listening, but it’s not that common because of the ego issue.

The reality is that most times speakers (in church and without) like to hear their own voices and get the promotion that comes with speaking more than they want people to learn. Or, they want people to learn but incorrectly think the key to is people listening to their wisdom, more than discuss with them. We discussed this in Let Attendees Be Participants, in which I also reference Edgar Dale’s Cone of Learning.

Your Leading Thoughts

• How are you running events and using different formats to encourage participation? What works and what doesn’t?
• Do you find it difficult to confront the norms when it comes to event format? I find it can be hard work as people have quite cemented expectations.

How does Social Media extend offline experiences? Sure, you can get a long list of resources that will make your event what is called a ‘hybrid’ (a virtual and physical event), but how do you know which ones are the priority for you, and what is the strategy behind those tactics anyway?

In 2004 I was running a youth organisation that I started called Feedback. We’d already discovered that by putting bands in the show they’d bring their fans along, and that would increase our numbers, but it was when we latched onto MySpace that we discovered the ability to increase participation virtually, aside from the physical limitations of our monthly events. (You can see some old footage on our old MySpace profile still today!)

This really is the benefit of Social Media as an extension of an offline offering. An offline event or experience is typically a single point in space, time and matter, but through Social Media, it can be extended in all three of these areas.

We then need to know how to extend those three in a way that is meaningful and relevant to ‘the why‘ of the offline event in the first place. Perhaps the most helpful element in this is Joe Pine’s model on The Multiverse (For a fuller discussion of this, you read our discussion on ‘virtually present‘)

There are 8 possible configurations of merging time, space, matter with non-time, non-space, non-matter. Joe presents a video on it here, which I would recommend you watch should you have a spare 50 minutes to get acquainted with the future.

• Space: virtual / physical. This is the mix between being physically there, and being virtually there. Being virtually there means that you don’t have to be restricted by:
• Time: linear / non-linear. This means that I be at the event before the event, during the event, after the event. You get the idea. This also means that I lift the restriction of:
• Matter: real / bits. This is about what things are made from. You can be in the same physical space but then still still experience bits – digital data – with which you can then contact those who are virtually present.

It can get very complex, which is what my talk certainly won’t be. I’ll be keeping things simple by getting back to the three core Social strategies that we’ve talked about recently, namely Socialising Channels, Socialising Content, and Socialising Culture. (I think things are easier to remember in threes, don’t you?)

I don’t want to share much more, but there’s a good taster for you here, and I’ll be sharing more of the content over the months, as we’ve got quite a bit of time until May!

Your Leading Thoughts

1. What’s the best example that you know of, of Social Media extending an event?
2. What would be you dream usage of Social Media as an enhancing of an offline experience?

Legendary photo courtesy of Benjamin Ellis

When I started out as a consultant two years ago, I had some proof, but it wasn’t clearly documented. The first thing to do is certainly to produce proof (and once you have, that doesn’t separate you from most), but actually producing that proof in a way that someone get’s it is hard work. Many of us have successes, but still there isn’t the knowledge of those successes that we’d like.

I think the thing with proof is that one man’s proof is not another man’s proof. I was talking to a friend the other day and offering some insights in their business. Whilst they are greatly respected, no one really knows exactly what this person does and therefore doesn’t purchase or promote their services. To him, there was proof, but to others, there wasn’t.

Michael Meyers, my pastor, and I were talking the other day and he made the exceptional observation that everything you say before the event is an intangible. It’s only after the event that you have something tangible. That is sooo good – because don’t just all of us focus on before the event, rather than after the event? “I can do this, we will have this, we have got this going on, I am able to deliver this for you,” etc, etc – but this is all intangible speak. Rather we should be saying “I have produced this. I have done this. We have made this happen. Do you want it too?”

Before the event is intangible, after the event is tangible.

This is why my friend saw they had proof but others hadn’t. He’d seen what he’d done before – the tangible parts – but he couldn’t communicate it in a tangible way.

Michael went on to say two further things which illustrate what you need to do, which I thought were gold:

1. Pick up the proof

After you’ve done it – after the event – you have to pick up the bits that prove you did it. The testimonies, the videos, the reviews, the blogs, the Facebook comments and the best tweets.

I’ll be honest, this is something I’m bad at because I’m exhausted after the event. His tip is to introduce a team of people whose sole responsibility is post-event PR. I’ll be giving it a go over the coming months, so I’ll let you know how it goes.

2. Publish the proof

Once you’ve picked it up, you need to publish it. This is where Social Channels help. Scatter that proof, baby. Have it on YouTube, the blog, the static pages, on Flickr, on Twitter, on Facebook. Make sure every channel has proof – because people are always looking at various channels and might never see the whole picture.

Your Leading Thoughts

1. I’m bad at producing proof and need to get better. If you are successful at this, what tips can you share?
2. This does fly in the face of the myth of the over the top digital personal brand, because they often lack proof. How do, however, produce proof without bragging?

Interesting image courtesy of Austin Kleon

Almost a year ago, when I was forming the ideas for Like Minds, I knew that ‘attendee’ would never be a word in our vocabulary. Everyone at Like Minds is a participant – whether they stand and delivery a keynote, turn to the person next to them and share their experience, or help guide a group a discussion.

The reason for this is quite simple: people are smart. The speakers are smart, and the listeners are smart.

I’m now seeing the word ‘participants’ replace ‘attendees’ all over the web. It certainly seems this participatory form of event is catching on – and I love it. In a people-to-people world, a people-to-people event needs to be participatory in order to ensure people learn. Note this isn’t about the speaker satisfying their ego, or the listener satisfying their lust for criticism – this is about learning.

Inspired by my friends Jeff Hurt and Dave Lutz who write the number 1 event management / event design blog in the world (at least, in my eyes), I’m sharing what we found in our latest event what worked and didn’t work, by experience, in regards to creating a participatory learning environment.

Killing the Divide

Worked: Preparing keynotes and panels. I know it’s obvious, but all too often a keynote is being prepared on the plane, and the panel in the corridor before hand. Preparation means I’ve thought about what the community of people who are present need to hear – not just what I’ve said before. Don’t underestimate speakers – they want you to help them prepare and want your direction on how they should prepare.

Didn’t work: Laptops for keynote speaker notes. The best thing about TED Talks is that they are so focussed and well oiled that they impart exactly what they want to communicate, free from fluff or ‘urms’. This means as a viewer I get to connect with them, free from standing behind a laptop, and connect to their ideas that have been well thought out and are being clearly communicated. This is the way I’m going for the future – no laptop notes.

Worked: Panels with giving people who seek the truth on behalf of the listeners. You need strong people on the panel – but they need to be able to give and take, speak and listen, and act on behalf of the listeners. This means carefully selected panelists based on their facilitation skills, more than their speaking skills.

Didn’t work: Un-facilitated panels. Our panel preparation wasn’t good enough, and we left the panels unmoderated. I actually think we need facilitators more than moderators. A facilitator will help keep the panel focussed, and also draw questions from the floor.

Worked: Having panelists go into the crowd and begin talking with the clusters of groups. A few people said they enjoyed this even more than the keynotes. We called this ‘Crowd Discussion’. What we also did was ask people to sit it different seats each time they came back from the break, which increased discussion the new people that were engaging with one another.

Didn’t work: Adjusting the break length and crowd discussion length when the internet participants were lost because the stream went down. We shouldn’t have adjusted the experience for the people present to cater for the ones who weren’t present. Mistake.

The Future – Your Leading Thoughts

I’m keen to hear your feedback on this. As you know, I have a little event framework for four levels of learning: person-to-people, persons-to-people, people-to-people and person-to-person. So, person-to-people could be a keynote; persons-to-people could be a panel or interview, etc.

• What is the future of participation in events, in your opinion?
• What would you like to be done different to increase your learning? (I’ve got a suspicion we could use my 7 Levels of Particpation model here.)
• How do you increase participation without creating disorder and therefore reducing the potential to learn?

Cool photo courtesy of looking4poetry

I wrote a while ago about the issue with Social Media events being that they aren’t Social. I suggested a few reasons why this is – but they really boiled down to two core problems:

1. Ego
2. Ego

Ego in the first instance is like speakers like to hear themselves talk, and Ego in the second instance is that we love to say we heard ‘so and so’ speak. (Thank you, Jeff Jarvis, for inspring me to tell the truth, and use the word Ego here.) Unfortunately, these aren’t conducive to effective learning.

Cue the above image, that Josh Chandler keenly pointed out to me (thanks Josh) which displays some very pertinent statistics on our discussion of social events. (Josh informs me he got this from Social Media Examiner, so thanks to them.)

In short: if you are interested in creating an attendee-centric event that places the attendee’s learning as the priority (and I plee with you to do so), then you’ll realise that after 2 weeks, if you attendees just hear talks they will only remember 20% of what they heard. But if you get them to discuss it immediately, they will remember 70% of what they say. This isn’t new – Edgar Dale did this research back in ’69 – but one thing is sure, the higher up the scale you go, the less broadcast you are, and the more social you become.

Of course, this means you have fewer attendees, and more participants. As Anne Marie says, Learning Is Social.

In shorter: People remember 20% of what they hear and 70% of what they say. We don’t let people say, because of our egos. We love our own voices too much. Attendee-centric events let attendees say, and turn attendees into participants.

The shortest: Let attendees be participants.

Confession: I’m still failing at this. With the last Like Minds, we were still around the 30% – 50% area, except for the Like Minds Lunches, which were discussions and took us into the 70% bracket, but only for a short period. For our next outing (I’ll share the news with you this week), we are aiming to spend a lot more time in the 70% backet.

Thanks also go to Jeff Hurt and Dave Lutz, whose blog Midcourse Corrections I again recommend as a great source for anybody designing events of any kind. In fact, you can catch a free webinar with Jeff today, which you can get details for here.

Your Leading Thoughts

I value your thoughts, as leaders in your areas. Use these questions as a guide for comments below:

1. If we are talking about being virtually present, where do you think that sits on the scale? How can Social Media facilitate this?
2. What events have engaged you on the higher percentage of that scale? What did they do in order to do it?
3. What are the challenges to breaking from the ‘Verbal Receiving’ area?

This is a photo of me, Chris Brogan and Molly Flatt and the Like Minds Summit earlier this year. Looking at it reminds of one of the most important lessons I’ve ever learnt – namely that what I remember from that day isn’t the content we discussed (despite it being amazing), but it’s the feeling of friendship that I had.

Earlier this year I guest posted an article on Search Engine People discussing a simple framework to focus on feeling, because the reality is that when people reach the door, close the laptop, or put their head on the pillow, they don’t remember what was said, they remember how they felt.

Armed with 4 A’s, I used a restaurant as an example to explain how this is done – and you can apply this to anything: a shop, website, event, person, anything. You can read the whole thing here. The synopis briefly is that you need to consider:

Anticipation: How do you people feel about you, before they’ve experience you?

Ambience: What does it feel like when people are with you?

Assistance: How are you providing people what they need, so they don’t feel unsure or unprepared or?

Association: What does it feel like to be linked to you?

What I wanted to discuss today is what this statement, people don’t remember what was said but how they felt, means for us in the light of recent conversation. Right away, for example, I think of conferences where we often find organisers and speakers cramming content down throats, without thinking about how those attendees will feel about the event as a whole.

When you get to thinking about experience and feeling, you have to be user focussed, because that’s where all the feeling happens!

I was speaking to Chris Hall the other day (we meet up face-to-face a lot), and he was saying that the top thing he remembered from Like Minds wasn’t the content, it wasn’t hanging out with the great people, it was actually when I saw him on the Thursday night before and gave him a hug. That messes with my organiser mindset that says people will remember some profound thing that I said or some great innovation that we made. Because they won’t. They’ll remember the bit that made them feel special.

I wonder, then, how you can stop thinking about what you are saying, and instead on how you are endeavouring to make people feel special.

Your Leading Questions

• When did you come away from something and you remembered how you felt far more than what you heard?
• How do we translate feeling into action?
• How do we measure feeling?

Let’s be honest today.

The feedback is coming in from some events running right now – SxSWi, SMWF and some reviews from Like Minds, and something is clear to me: we still are thinking top down.

Yesterday Valeria Maltoni posted “SxSWi in Quotes“, which comprised mostly of people saying their favourite thing at South By SouthWest (SxSW) was, lo and behold, meeting people. Chris Brogan made similar conclusions in his commentary entitled ”We Could Do So Much More“, when he negatively saw people not connecting, as well as panels that weren’t attendee centric. Some how it seems the people come for the people, but the event isn’t organised for this.

Update: Jay Bear has added his thoughts on SxSW today, which also echo the same sentiment. Jay writes that “the feeling of community, and ‘we’re all in this together’ is slipping away.”

Social Media World Forum (SMWF) struggled at the beginning of the week with criticism over the same old content, and poor focus on the attendees. From what I’ve heard, this wasn’t just the event organisers, but the general attitude of many involved (all all levels: sponsors, speakers, delegates) who saw it as another event to push their content – and from what I’ve seen on the #smwf hashtag, this does seem to be true.

The feedback we had for Like Minds was overwhelmingly positive, but the criticism came, and I’m very mindful of it, that there was still lots of talking heads and not enough application. Despite our innovations with the Like Minds Lunchtime Talks, I know many people still didn’t connect and get what they needed to go and implement on Monday morning. More theory than action.

Even at the beginning of the year at the Media140 Meetup in January, there was a point where Glenn Le Santo stood up and broke the broadcast from the panel and actually started some open, honest, two-way communication – which turned it into, again from what I heard, an exceptional evening.

What’s Wrong?

The whole point of Social Media is that it is supposed to be social. Non-broadcast. Non-vertical. But… Social Media events are very broadcast, very vertical, and aren’t social.

Perhaps I should say that they aren’t social enough – and stop being so polarising - but I’m not talking about the social aspect that happens around the content. What I mean is that the foundational concept of the event is not social, it is broadcast. It doesn’t need to be, but it be. And I have a few thoughts why:

1. We idolise content, so the organisers give it.

People who say event organisers do it for money haven’t organised an event. The reason why we are so heavy on broadcasting content is because we so idolise content above comments.

This is another contradiction that irritates me, that we focus on the content not the comments – which is again broadcast over conversation.

2. Speakers and panelists want their 5 minutes.

“Screw where the panel is going, I want to say my bit on what I did” is in the back of many minds, and then out goes the idea of ‘what is helpful to Joe Bloggs in the audience?’ This is why we have our panels planned at Like Minds – because value needs to be thought through. Otherwise, everyone just says the same thing.

And to be fair – why shouldn’t the speakers and panelist get their 5 minutes? Given how much we worship content, it makes sense they’d want to get theirs out too.

3. Much of the audience wants to make money tomorrow with Social Media.

When people say that “it didn’t help me”, what they really mean is “it told me Social Media is hard work and didn’t tell me how to make money from Twitter tomorrow.” They are also the ones with business cards that they throw in everyone’s face…

Of course this isn’t just an issue with Social Media events – it’s an issue with Social Media itself, namely that we focus on content far more than action.

This is top down. It’s not audience centric, it’s author centric. I could so easily use Like Minds to push my personal purposes, but I don’t. I chose to not be author centric.

Solutions?

First: Can we not be a Social Media conference, but a conference that uses Social Media? This distinction alone changes the whole way you promote the event, because Social Media becomes a means, not an end. Therefore you can relax about whether you trend on Twitter or not. Yeah, it’s nice when you do, but it doesn’t actually make a shred of difference.

Second: Drilling down even further, our aims need to shift from providing more content to promoting more connections. Seeing as we already know more than we do, our aims should be to unite people not with more knowledge they don’t use, but with like minded individuals with whom they can make things happen. Seriously – for how much longer can we continue to preach to the converted?

Another way to say this would be to simply to say: make events about people, and action.

Third: We must dare to be different. We’re running the same 1950s conference model with 21st Century ideas. The unconference model is a step towards it, but these tend to be poorly organised and not accessible to those who are newcomers. I consider ‘unconferencing’ to be a part of the event as whole, but not the whole event, as I describe in Creating A People-To-People Conference.

I began to feel the echo chamber effect in December. I guess now it’s really echoing. The days of events riding on the back of Social Media and expecting to just succeed are over – at least for London anyway.

The Change Begins With You

As I described, I think this is stinking thinking that we’ve all got a little of. Stuck on the content wagon.

The first way to break it? Go away and do something.

What do you think?