Comments on: Should conferences ban blogging? http://www.blogherald.com/2006/10/29/should-conferences-ban-blogging/ The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:30:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Graham Jones - Internet Psychologist http://www.blogherald.com/2006/10/29/should-conferences-ban-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-129875 Graham Jones - Internet Psychologist Mon, 30 Oct 2006 06:41:10 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2006/10/29/should-conferences-ban-blogging/#comment-129875 Banning live blogging is the same as stopping people talking about a meeting. They won't and they will feel restricted. This will put people off attending such meetings. Far from making these conferences "exclusive", banning blogging will reduce attendance. Furthermore it will encourage negative blogs against such companies, resulting in poor image. Add to that the lack of positive blogging from the meeting where blogging is banned and the company will further lose reputation. Companies who ban blogging fail to understand how human beings work and also do not appear to know much about the way blogging works. They have completely missed the point. Banning live blogging is the same as stopping people talking about a meeting. They won’t and they will feel restricted. This will put people off attending such meetings. Far from making these conferences “exclusive”, banning blogging will reduce attendance. Furthermore it will encourage negative blogs against such companies, resulting in poor image. Add to that the lack of positive blogging from the meeting where blogging is banned and the company will further lose reputation. Companies who ban blogging fail to understand how human beings work and also do not appear to know much about the way blogging works. They have completely missed the point.

]]> By: Max Kalehoff http://www.blogherald.com/2006/10/29/should-conferences-ban-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-129863 Max Kalehoff Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:42:03 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2006/10/29/should-conferences-ban-blogging/#comment-129863 Greetings Matt, Max Kalehoff here from Nielsen BuzzMetrics. Our event was a private, client-only user-group event. Unfortunately, most of the discussion about our request for attendees not to blog missed this important fact. As you note, Steve Rubel failed to indicate this, as well as many others. I guess it would’ve dilluted the otherwise great headline. So why? The answer is simple: our paying clients preferred that format, and this was their conference. The agenda, topics, and key questions all flowed from their input - even their desire to tackle issues privately. Importantly, unlike many public media conferences, which seek awareness and ticket sales, this was a no-charge, no-frills gathering of 100 representatives from client organizations who have invested significant time and resources in Nielsen BuzzMetrics services. This was not an event put on for bloggers, but a client user-group meeting, something thousands of companies hold in private everyday. In the end, we achieved deep and stimulating conversation, led primarily by the clients themselves, and putting their interests first was the right thing to do. We’ll continue to seek our clients’ input in future client-only events to see if a more fully exposed, “on-the-record� forum makes sense. We want to get it right, and welcome public feedback as well. At the same time, we must honor obligations to confidentiality around client case studies, client information and client wishes… I welcome you to read my full post as well as offer any further comment or suggestions. Thanks. http://attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_hist.html Greetings Matt,

Max Kalehoff here from Nielsen BuzzMetrics. Our event was a private, client-only user-group event. Unfortunately, most of the discussion about our request for attendees not to blog missed this important fact. As you note, Steve Rubel failed to indicate this, as well as many others. I guess it would’ve dilluted the otherwise great headline.

So why? The answer is simple: our paying clients preferred that format, and this was their conference. The agenda, topics, and key questions all flowed from their input – even their desire to tackle issues privately. Importantly, unlike many public media conferences, which seek awareness and ticket sales, this was a no-charge, no-frills gathering of 100 representatives from client organizations who have invested significant time and resources in Nielsen BuzzMetrics services. This was not an event put on for bloggers, but a client user-group meeting, something thousands of companies hold in private everyday. In the end, we achieved deep and stimulating conversation, led primarily by the clients themselves, and putting their interests first was the right thing to do.

We’ll continue to seek our clients’ input in future client-only events to see if a more fully exposed, “on-the-record� forum makes sense. We want to get it right, and welcome public feedback as well. At the same time, we must honor obligations to confidentiality around client case studies, client information and client wishes…

I welcome you to read my full post as well as offer any further comment or suggestions. Thanks.

http://attentionmax.com/blog/2006/10/are_private_conversations_hist.html

]]>