“Fit the allotted time to content and event type rather than the opposite.”
Is it just me, or is there never enough time allotted for (virtual or hybrid) panels and their respective Q&As? It’s almost a cliché at this point that “we’ve run out of time.”
My solution, drum roll, is to extend the allotted time for the content and the Q&A. This is why I get paid the big bucks to develop solutions like this (#sarcasm).
I’m conscious that we are all sick and tired of virtual events in general; only the best online events should be longer. You won’t notice the difference when correctly implemented.
A limited percent of all virtual events warrant a longer format.
Marquee virtual panels and discussions are the very ones to benefit most, and the vast majority of virtual panels and discussions should remain with the traditional approach. To be extra clear, I’m NOT suggesting extending EVERY virtual panel or EVERY Q&A; simply a limited number of overlooked existing high-value ones.
I’m aware some virtual events already use a more extended format; I posit not enough of the more popular ones do.
Examples
Periodic or single topic-driven IMF, OAG, Sojern, SKIFT, PhocusWire virtual presentations, to name a few, can benefit from the additional panel or discussion time.
“Monthly updates,” quarterly thought leader events, media companies with existing audiences, and high visibility events often could use more time (especially Q&A time).
Content with limited distribution, engagement, or nascent audience numbers should follow the conventional approach and “walk before you run” in this context.
Always This Way
I feel virtual presentations and panels have autonomously defaulted to 60 minutes in length. The proverbial it’s always been done this way, or we never tried extending the time.
Worth Considering
Despite being an almost banal suggestion with broad use cases, a more extended format warrants further consideration, and pilot testing is all I’m suggesting. The world won’t come to an end if you test outside the 60-minute event box.