« Not in WorldCat | Main | Featured Reviews: A Way to Give Easy Ego Boosts to Your Customers »
February 07, 2008
PLA Virtual Conference
PLA is having a virtual addition to its annual conference in March. For the first time ever, PLA is offering virtual content for its members with live webcasts, discussion boards, chats, etc. Read more on the PLA Blog and the Virtual Conference Information page.
I understand and applaud this foray into the virtual. What I don't understand is this:
- PLA is holding this virtual conference separate from the regular conference - not live broadcasting of sessions already being held at PLA and allowing people to participate from home via VOIP, videoconferencing, or chat. That would have been sweet.
- There is very little information about what virtual attendees would actually be getting. The site says that each day will have five live sessions and there will be other stuff like poster sessions and chats. But I'm not going to shell out a couple hundred bucks of my library's training budget unless I know what I'm getting is good. In other words, what can PLA offer me that I can't get through free web resources and social networking myself? And right now, a month before the conference, there is virtually no information.
- In order to attend the virtual conference, you have to register and pay major bucks ($200 for PLA members, $255 for ALA members, $295 for nonmember, $75 for students). In a day when activities, classes, and sessions are being held online for free through organizations like OPAL, Five Weeks to a Social Library, WebJunction, and more - what am I getting that's so great for this much money?
- PLA makes a big deal of the virtual conference being great because you can attend it "all from the comfort of your computer." And then they give you automatic entitlement to attend the virtual conference if you go to/register for the physical conference. If you're at the physical conference, what do we care if there's more stuff via computer? How many people are going to have the time or energy to do both?
I do congratulate PLA on a nice step forward, but I have one word of suggestion: Integrate. Integrate the two conferences together and offer more information about the virtual conference much earlier so people can register and know that they are spending their precious funds wisely. I look forward to seeing what happens next year, and if other ALA organizations take this up.
February 7, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e5505219548833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PLA Virtual Conference:
Comments
I'm actually going to PLA this year (w00t!), but I was slightly horrified to see the pricetag for the virtual conference. When it costs more to register for the virtual conference than it does to register for the early bird physical conference, you're charging too much. My thought is not going to be, "I can't make it to Minneapolis this year, so I think I'll shell out more for 10 unnamed seminars and cancel my activities here to sit around and watch them." Maybe I'm simply old and ornery before my time, though.
Posted by: Meg | February12, 2008
To answer Jenny's questions: I'd like to see full output as with any quality webcast that we see nowadays - video, audio, and slides. And let's do it with some of the wonderful free software that's out there, like Yugma and Skype. It worked at a conference I moderated in San Francisco: (more info). If the queestion is content vs. quality of broadcast, I'd go with content. If I get the audio of the speaker, that's good enough for me; I don't need to hear audience discussion/questions unless that is the main focus of the presentation. Slides can be posted ahead of time and those of us who are following from afar can follow along. As a virtual attendee, I'd love to be able to pick and choose which sessions I'd attend virtually, from the entire catalog: barring that (which I realize is virtually impossible, I'd like to choose from a sub-set - which sessions are likely to be the most popular).
I do agree that merging can be difficult. I am fully aware that presentations like those that OPAL or other organizations give that are free to the end user aren't free to the people who put them on. Having been involved in several such webcasts, classes, etc. myself, I am fully aware of the cost in time and intellectual energy that it takes the presenters to come up with the material and/or the technical infrastructure necessary to make such a conference possible. I also never stated that PLA was "behind" in this arena. It's a challenge for all of us. This particular attempt, though, to me is not a successful one from the perspective of me - a PLA member who won't be attending the physical conference for various reasons, and who is the perfect candidate to attend a virtual conference. At least in me, they've really missed the mark. My main point is this. Physical conferences are losing their appeal as there become more and more ways to learn, hear great speakers, and network using new technologies. Because of that, organizations that thrive because of physical conferences (e.g. that's where their operating budget comes from) need to find new ways to draw people in to the organization and give them something no one else can. What is PLA giving me here that I can't get anywhere else? What is PLA giving me that is worth the $200 or so dollars it will cost me to attend 10 sessions? What _are_ those 10 sessions? It's asking me to gamble, big time, with my employer's money and time and I won't do it.
I've been pushing various groups in various ways for over 5 years now to have virtual conferences. And, as I said, I'm glad PLA is doing something. It's just nowhere near where it needs to be to be successful. I'm sorry if that offends colleagues who are near and dear to me, but I can't pretend I feel otherwise.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | February10, 2008
I continue to think that the hardest thing to do is merge physical and virtual conferences. I've been involved in such projects and frankly, this isn't some arena where ALA is "behind," because it's just not easy. I've been to a number of non-library technology conferences and this just isn't on the horizon.
Yes, they should explain what they're offering. This is a consumer decision. I do see this list:
http://www.placonference.org/programming.cfm
What I want to know is who's doing what sessions.
The Q and A with Nancy Pearl looks great!
Note: if even half of the sessions are good (where I get to define what "goodness" is), that would compare favorably with every other conference I've attended in or out of libraries.
So then you'd have a good two-day conference, less the hotel, airfare, and marking, but not as good at the schmoozing... kind of like the tradeoffs of distance ed.
Also, not to flog this to death, but OPAL and Webjunction events aren't "free." In some cases the cost models don't rely on direct participant fees, but somewhere someone needs to get paid. Even for Five Weeks, keep in mind that while some of it was sweat equity, some of it included staff time that libraries donated.
Posted by: K.G. Schneider | February 9, 2008
I have loved a lot of the conference live blogging - but think it takes a certain writing style and level of equipment to pull it off. I also know that if you are typing about the last great point, you are probably missing the next one. Nonetheless, the people who blog the conferences I can't get to are deeply appreciated - even for the glimmer of insight that makes me think that I wish I was there. What about two liveblogggers each taking a complementary aspect of a presentation - one capturing verbal and dialogue, one capturing slides and visuals, and you could read both simultaneously? With the occasional still shot sent your way to set the scene? It would go a long way. ALA or PLA or whoever facilitates by providing the equipment, training in capturing the essence of a live presentation in unedited writinng, and then assigning someone to do it. They host, people read live or at their leisure. Kinda like buying a tape of a speech - you weren't there, but it is the next best thing. Enough of these, and the person just may sign up for the conference next time, knowing it will be a quality experience.
Posted by: Hillary | February 8, 2008
I had some of these same questions myself, but I'm not involved with the PLA project, so unfortunately I don't have any answers.
But I'm hoping you can elaborate a little more on what integration would look like, as this is something we've been discussing within ALA. The issue from my viewpoint is bandwidth. You can include virtual participation via text chat, but what are you sending out to them? Video? Audio? Text? Slides?
I learned first-hand from the gaming symposium that you can't just set up a video camera in the room and hope to capture what's really happening. You need someone there to follow the speaker's movements (especially if there's more than one), show slides, and catch audience questions. In addition, you probably want to be jacked into the audio system to get decent audio and you need a solid internet connection that's probably not being used by 10-20 laptops in the room.
These things cost a lot of money if you do them officially (thousands of dollars in convention center and hotel settings). Officially, I don't think we could afford to do this for every session, although a few would probably be doable. Unofficially, members have a lot more leeway when they just walk in and set up a camcorder. ;-)
So if the trade-off is some content versus quality of the broadcast, where would your preference fall on that scale? Which pieces would you like to see integrated and what would you expect as a virtual attendee?
Posted by: Jenny Levine | February 8, 2008
