- regarding the audience, I think it works both ways, with the community defining itself as attendees they signup. The Lift audience has a lot in common (curiosity, creativity, influence, openness) but you can’t really define it with the usual boundaries (sectors, titles, etc)
- I’m still amazed that so few conferences function the way newspaper function, i.e. with editorial and marketing separated. But we’re sometimes in a territory where sponsors are extremely relevant, complicating the matter. At Lift we’ve chosen our side, with two teams that work separately and working to provide a pitch/promo free stage for the audience. I believe it’s even more positive for the partners who then focus on a more effective strategy: creating value for the attendees.
- networking is much more trickier than it seems. Consider a problem TED has (in my opinion): a seat there is so valuable (with thousands of people on the waiting list) that TEDsters are afraid of losing them. So the community does not renew itself, and you get only the “old friend” mode. It gets harder to meet new faces, mostly because you have to dedicate so much time to “maintain” relationships with those you know. Networking can only be influenced by the organizer, but it’s up to the person to make it work. Go to a conference where you know nobody and you’ll meet 30 new faces. Go to a conference you’ve attended three times and you’ll meet 5 people max.