It’s been 5 days since New Media Atlanta and I am still exhausted.  Putting together an event like this in less than three months of time forced some long days and sleepless nights.  However, most of my exhaustion now comes from trying to keep up with the conversations that started last Friday.  Let me start by saying that I am listening to everything.  In fact, I am working hard to filter the noise and find the signal.  I want to thank everyone for their contributions to the conversations.  We have received many praises and some outright attacks.  Just to illustrate…

“I go to a lot of conferences, and the organizers of this one did just about everything right.  The venue (Georgia Tech Research Institute) was great – yes, the ban on food and beverages in the auditorium was annoying, but everyone had a desk in front of them and their own power outlet (a rare treat), as well as free wifi.  There was free parking and you could make your own nametag (including Twitter name) with multicolored Sharpies.  An afterparty at Ten Pin Alley at Atlantic Station was planned, as was an optional “RockStar lunch” where folks who paid extra could have a private catered lunch with speakers.”   – Stacy Williams (attended the event in-person) started one of the first conversations after the event on her blog

“The content DID suck at New Media Atlanta. It sucked so bad it made even a primo seller of Air Nothing like Brogan look like he’d just made f-ing Quadrophenia.  Whomever organized NMA and chose the speakers had no clue about the community they were attempting to serve, making it quite clear they were interested only in relieving you suckers who attended in person of your hard-earned money… something they did quite well actually, and should be applauded as the excellent snake oil salespersons that they are.” – Grayson Daughters (did not attend, but watched on the free Live Stream by Dakno) left this statement as a comment on another blog

Our event has quickly become a case study on social media, conferences, presentations, anonymity, and tech tools. Many of the conversations have centered around or focused on Backnoise.com because of the role it played at the event.  I’m not going to explain backnoise, because if you’ve read this far then you probably already know.  But I do want to say that we did not let backnoise run our event.  We certainly followed some of the signals (lighting adjustments, water and bathroom break, extending sessions that rocked, etc…) and ignored as much of the noise as possible.  All apologies to Desiree Scales of Bella Web Design and Tom Hazlett of Clear for the adjustments causing them disrespect.  They are both quality people and deserved better than we delivered for them Friday.  We will work hard to regain their trust.

Several people have attacked Backnoise itself and the creator of the tool.  Let me say that backnoise is not the problem and neither is Keith, in fact he is a stand up guy and immediately requested a face-to-face meeting with me and Matt (great meeting).  The problem with backnoise at our event was how it was managed by us and by the crowd itself.  I accept responsibility for not preparing properly for the back channel.  We focused so much on the front channel (twitter, blogs, facebook, etc..) that we failed to prepare to manage the back channel (and anonymity proved a breeding ground for trolls).  To those who were offended by comments, I can only apologize that it happened at our event.  The social media community of Atlanta will have to answer for itself as to why we allowed some of the comments to go unchecked (and I think they are with blog posts and comments).  I can say with confidence that Keith will make valuable improvements to backnoise to allow for better self-policing by the audience and a few custom options for event organizers to help filter the noise.

One blogger, Emily, has some great points at how metrics fit into conversations like the ones around New Media Atlanta.  Unfortunately many of her examples are not applicable as backnoise does not keep historical data for analyzing (maybe in the future it will). So, here’s an attempt to satiate her thirst for more:

- We have only received 9 official feedback forms.  7 of the 9 were positive with constructive feedback and 2 were negative with constructive feedback.

- I also received 6 direct emails with feedback on the event.  All of which were positve with constructive advice.

- Social Mention tracks the conversation across ‘all’ (according to them) platforms as 5 to 1 positive over negative.  I used the keywords “new media atlanta”, “#nmatl” at 12:15 9/30/2009 (of course it will have changed by the time you check).  There were 149 unique authors and we had 225 people attend the event.  66.2% seems like a really passionate crowd, but Social Mention only gives their tone of comments a 35% passion rating.  As for details of the Sentiment, 75 were positive, 173 neutral, and 15 negative.

- I have tracked 7 different review/opinion style blog posts.  5 were negative and 2 positive, both gave constructive feedback.  However, it’s in the comment sections that I see most of the activity (and I didn’t count all the comments).  Many commenters are neutral to positive about the event and many are negative.  Comment threads (and backnoise) are by far the most prevalent place for attacks and extreme negativity.  Does this say something about social media commenters vs authors?  Or is it just the age-old adage ‘opinions are like assholes’ thing?

- I have seen at least 5, there are probably more that I can’t remember to even count, video/photo/slideshow style posts.  All were positive and a couple had constructive feedback.

So what now?  I can say with confidence that I’ve learned a shit load about conferences, speakers, presentations, anonymity, and people.  Here are the things I think (and many others think as well) we did right:
- venue selection
- price point
- promotion
- organization of details
- keynote speaker
- finding signals real-time that enhanced the event

Here are the things I think (and many others think as well) we did wrong or left out altogether and shouldn’t have:
- did not define the content properly
- should have crowdsourced better for speakers and content
- should have scheduled more breaks/networking into agenda
- did not allow enough audience participation
- allowed some of the real-time noise to detract our focus

At this point I welcome anyone who has an interest in formalizing a white paper about conferences, backnoise, and/or the social media industry to contact me directly.  I imagine by the extreme lovers and haters of the event that we have stumbled onto something of value.  If people didn’t care, they wouldn’t say anything. Lots of people care.   Someone, or a few people, has a chance to help publish a white paper with their name on it that may change/shape how future events are designed.  Sharing this document with other event planners, speakers, social media advisers, could directly impact a career.  I will be glad to help and take none of the credit.

Thank you all for coming together last Friday to start conversations that will change many things for many people.  You all matter and together we’re better!