| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSThe show did not seem to me to be much lighter in attendance than previous SES shows, contrary to what Mark Simon wrote on Monday (see his column here -- Mark, did you only visit the exhibit hall, and not any of the sessions?), but the old SES vibe may be a thing of the past. Overall, there were many panels covering emerging areas such as widgets, social media, RIA and the like. The new direction from Kevin Ryan is a bit more interactive-marketing-focused, which is a good thing, because search is becoming more about marketing, and marketing is becoming more about search. Not that there was anything wrong with the previous approach. It's simply a matter of timing and evolution.
Here are a few additional observations I took away from the show:
Net Neutrality. The discussion on network neutrality was the most important search panel of the entire conference, yet it had the least amount of attendees -- a room for 500+ was filled with only 20 people. I have been following this discussion for some time now, and the panel served as something of a wake-up call. The issue of keeping networks open and non-partial is not dead, nor will it go away in the near future. Simply put, U.S. Internet policy is being determined right now, and the way this policy is eventually written will have a serious impact on the search industry, search engines, the Internet, free speech, and free Internet economies.
Kudos to SES chairs Rebecca Lieb and Kevin Ryan for putting on this session. An Internet policy discussion or update would be great at every future event, even if it's for only the 20 people who show up. I will write more about network neutrality in upcoming columns, but in the meantime if you would like to learn more, visit the links below.
- Wikipedia entry
- Save the Internet
- Google's position on Net Neutrality
- Open Internet Coalition
- Google search for "network neutrality"
Jason Calacanis Wednesday keynote. Mahalo's Jason Calacanis gave the Wednesday afternoon keynote to talk about his new human-driven search engine, and also about search optimizers. Back in December 2006, he made what he said was an offhand remark that most natural search optimization is "bull****", which naturally erupted into a firestorm offline and online. Calacanis says he doesn't think all SEO is BS, but he still thinks that many approaches are often very short-sighted.
At the end of it all, Calacanis says he is now considering using SEO tactics for Mahalo, based on all the free advice he has been getting as a result of search experts trying to sell him on the concept of SEO. He doesn't consider his own use of these tactics as "SEO" -- but more "marketing." As Oprah would say, this was truly a full-circle moment. Hopefully the people who have been giving Calacanis a hard time will now go a bit easier on him.
Universal Search. Tuesday's Orion panel on Google Universal was one of the most interesting of the three days I attended, in the form of new research presented by James Lamberti, senior vice president at comScore, on a survey of millions of searchers, searches, and SERPs. One insightful revelation was that out of 87 million searchers, 58% saw a Universal search result. Lamberti's findings also stressed that optimizing for Universal is now a marketing imperative, so this is great research to further back up what we search evangelists have been tirelessly preaching and writing about over the last year.
John Battelle spent a lot of time trying to get Google Universal project manager Jack Menzel to admit that Google is changing its business model and is now a media company. It's an important question Battelle is asking -- and while of course Google is a media company, he seemed to be asking the wrong person, and never got the answer he was looking for. I hope he will keep asking the right people (maybe Google's Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Matt Cutts, or Marissa Mayer?) so that he may eventually get the right answer. Read more of what Battelle is thinking here.
So was the show a success? Are there too many search conferences? Would I attend this one again? Were many questions left unanswered? Were there enough full-circle epiphanies? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. And given the buzz scenario, the show was exactly what I expected.
Meet Rob Garner at Search Insider Summit Utah!
Rob Garner will be there moderating a panel on "Search and Social" on December 05 at 9:45 AM. Top executives will be there. Will you?
Register today and save.
Register today and save.
RSS FEEDS
Great column!
The Net Neutrality issue is critically important to our business and that’s exactly why I put it in the conference. David Isenberg is truly one of the visionaries of our time.
Though Net Neutrality was not the most popular session (as you accurately point out) it is essential information (certainly more important than initiating an argument over whom should be declared “Emperor of Conference Statistics�) and my hat is off to you for bringing the issue the attention it deserves.
@Larry Press - video and MP3 files of sessions are being made available to members only in the newly re-vamped Search Engine Watch members section - www.searchenginewatch.com - click on members in the nav bar.
To correct Rory, when I worked for SES, I was not only interested in the sessions and paid attendance. I was paid on that basis, but it wasn't like I didn't think about the entire conference experience. I did, and improving that experience was one of the reasons I left to do my own thing. While I wasn't responsible for the expo side, I did ensure that the programming also allowed time for attendees to get the expo floor. Attendees want that as well as sessions. If I gave no thought to the expo, there would never have been programmed break times in the way there was.
At SMX shows, I remain much more involved in the programming side, but you bet, a good expo experience is important to me from an overall standpoint. So I do want the numbers -- or more important, I want a good, qualified audience showing up for our exhibitors.
That brings us back to the numbers. We've had two MediaPost columns now debating what the figures really were. As I've explained, part of the issue is that they weren't defined. I first heard the 8,000 number put out on the first day. With respect, there's no way that figure was correct on the first day. There was no expo that day, and unless things radically changed in the hotel, there was no way -- no way -- 8,000 paid people were stuffed into five tracks on Day 1. That number, put out that day to my recollection and online reading, pretty much sounds like an estimate based on registrations but not actual attendance.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem believing that by the end of the week, upwards from 5,000 if not more people made it through the show in some way. As I said, the show sounds just as strong as it was the year before, and I personally saw those crowds the year before. But let's define the figures, if we're going to put them out.
In particular, I've had Matt McGowan who does the SES marketing (and who, I'll add, I personally like and would count as a friend), at least twice publicly suggest that SMX doesn't have the "critical mass" of SES or that the networking is somehow stronger because there are more people at SES. So if the numbers are going to be trotted out and used in this way, get very specific with them. Putting out a figure on the first day that gets widely cited without definition isn't the way forward. Self-report, OK -- but get clear. What was the overall attendance, people who actually picked up badges and showed up on the conference floor. What was the paid attendance? Give the post figures as well as the initial estimate, which is based only on registration.
SMX West was our first major general purpose search conference that my series had at the end of February. We had about 525 paid attendance, with about 1,750 minimum expo attendance. That figure might have been only expo-only people, with total expo attendance the combination (525+1,750), but I'd have to double-check. Go with the 1,750 figure for now. I'm proud to add that we're also the only conference that guarantees the quality of our show with credit back and no one took us up on that guarantee.
So I've shown you mine, so to speak -- step up SES and do the same. Fair to say, I'll have no doubt if self-reported paid attendance to SES NY was triple if not four times that of SMX West, with the expo hall perhaps the same. SES -- with the momentum I helped build for its first eight years -- remains a giant, and a revitalized one with Kevin Ryan taking it in a new direction.
SMX is very much an underdog, though I'm thrilled for our first time out, we delivered a huge show of our own with all the trimmings we think are important: outstanding content, packed expo hall with a qualified audience, a carefully thought out pre-networking experience along with coordinated networking events at the actual show. And lunches, of course, on plates.
In the end, it's still not just about numbers. Networking isn't better just because you have a lot of people, if they can't actually connect or meet or feel lost. A show isn't necessarily better because you have people sitting on floors. I shuddered when this happened at SES events I was in charge off because to me, if you buy a ticket, you ought to get a seat. But we can have the same thing happen at an SMX event if for some reason a session proves much more popular than you estimated. That's always a tough challenge.
So it's not the numbers, and you can expect those that don't have them will talk about reasons to look past them, while those that do have them will trot them out. I say they have a role to play, people want to know them and I'll trust that people will count them among all the other factors and make their own decisions. But if we're going to give them out, let's make them as accurate and as well defined as possible.
I would also say that Danny's argument about paid attendance is fine if you're only interested in the sessions (as he used to be) but there were 3 packed halls of stands at the NY Hilton last week. The expo and sponsorship area is a hugely important part of the show and we measure traffic just as actively across that side. There is a significant 'buyer meets seller' side to the SES show which probably doesn't exist as actively in other events.
Completely agree with Danny that there are plenty of senior people out there who should be coming to SES. Our marketing challenge is to make the agency folk realise that this is the place for them to come and learn more. See you next year New York.
When I was in charge of SES, I always cited the paid attendance as the best benchmark of how busy a show was. Paid is solid; and typically, you'd see 2-3 times as many people hit an expo. But SES no longer cites paid attendance. That means you get debates over whether it was busy or not, based on what someone eyeballs on the conference floor versus a conference room. And if the conference room is overflowing, is that a bumper crowd or lack of appropriate space?
I wasn't at SES, but the accounts I read give the impression it was a busy show at least on part with the attendance at SES NY last year. I assume it wasn't in excess of that, since no one from SES has said there was a record breaking crowd, a phrase used in the past. But matching SES NY's attendance from the prior year certainly would be a success in my book.
For the record, I'd be happy to cite paid attendance figures as a benchmark for our own SMX shows as soon as SES wants to step up and do the same. I can tell you they'll still come out higher than us for now, though we hope to give them a challenge on that front :)
I'll also add that I was cross-town that week at the Ad Age Digital Marketing Conference. What amazed me was when you'd figure anyone interested in search and in the NY area had to be at SES, the reality was 200 to 300 people were at an entirely different conference. There's still plenty of people to reach in the space.
There are too few observations being posted about SES NYC (in my opinion) yet many in the industry are watching to see how the SEM conference landscape is changing.
SES NYC had nearly 8,000 attendees which Incisive Marketing VP Matt McGowan has confirmed. There's nothing light about that number and I too, wonder what parts of the event Mark Simon was exposed to.
SEM practitioners, agencies and customers are all hungry to stay on top of what's relevant tactically and strategically in the search marketing industry. All SEM conferences that I'm aware of including SES, SMX and even MediaPost's SIS are keenly interested in offering the best content and experience that they can. In order to do that, they need feedback from delegates as well as potential attendees. I would encourage SES attendees to fill out the post conference survey that was sent out earlier this week and sound off. It can only make the industry better.