Lift10 Geneva - Survey results

  • 1,019 views
Uploaded on

A summary of the feedback survey by Owl RE for Lift 10 Geneva, a conference on the social implications of technology

A summary of the feedback survey by Owl RE for Lift 10 Geneva, a conference on the social implications of technology

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,019
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Results of feedback survey of Lift 10 Geneva June 2010 Glenn O’Neil – oneil@owlre.com Owl RE
  • 2. Introduction – Following the Lift 2010 conference (Geneva) of May 2010 an email invitation was sent to all participants (some 1000 persons) – 242 participants responded to the survey which is a response rate of 24% 2
  • 3. Overall rating Comparison between previous Lift conferences: Lift 10 Lift 09 Lift 08 Very poor 1% (2) 1% (2) -- Poor 7% (16) 1% (2) 3% (9) Satisfactory 20% (48) 8%(19) 7% (20) Good 54% (130) 48%(111) 52% (139) Excellent 19% (45) 42%(98) 37% (100) 3
  • 4. Influence 4
  • 5. Greatest benefit Tag cloud of responses to question: “What was the greatest benefit for you in attending Lift10?” 5
  • 6. Key factors 6
  • 7. More of.. When asked what attendees would like more of, major trends were: Themes: more on new technology and its application, unusual and inspiring ideas Presentations: more inspiring, exciting and better prepared Workshops: more interactive and better prepared Interaction: more involvement and discussions with participants 7
  • 8. Less of.. When asked what attendees would like less of, major trends were: Presentations: speakers reading their notes, no corporate presentations, poor preparation Participants: passive participants not interacting Themes: less predictable, outdated and those too far away from central Lift theme 8
  • 9. Best experience Tag cloud of responses to question: “What was you best experience at Lift 10?” *”Davies” refers to presentation by Russell Davies on printing the internet *Google refers to workshop conducted by Google 9
  • 10. Key formats 10
  • 11. Attend / recommend Lift 11 Lift 10 Lift 09 Lift 08 Attend next LIFT? Yes 76% 86% 87% No 24% 14% 13% Recommend to a friend? Yes 86% 97% 92% No 14% 13% 18% 11
  • 12. New business at Lift 10 – 91 attendees responded to the question “Did you get any new business at the Lift conference?” – 14 attendees (15%) said “Yes” – 50 attendees (55%) said “No” – The remaining 30% of attendees said “maybe” with many commenting that interesting contacts were made that could eventually turn into partnerships or new business 12
  • 13. Input & influence over LIFT From 09, increase of 20% for Workshops and decreases of 15% for Open Stage and 3% for Lift Experience 13
  • 14. Value for money Comparison between previous Lift conferences: Lift 10 Lift 09 Lift 08 Don’t know 26% 22% 15% Worth more 18% 23% 24% Worth what I paid 41% 46% 51% Worth less 16% 9% 9% 14
  • 15. Payment of entry fee Comparison between previous Lift conferences: Lift 10 Lift 09 Lift 08 Paid myself 20% 20% 27% Organisation paid 40% 30% 38% Partner / media 24% 30% 23% Other 16% 19% 11% 15
  • 16. Transport to Lift10 Similar results as in past years 8% - did do something to offset carbon emissions of transport 64% - did not do anything 27% - not applicable to their situation 16
  • 17. Willingness to travel Not measured in previous conferences 17
  • 18. Attend other Lift conference? Not measured in previous conferences 18
  • 19. Ideal duration of Lift Not measured in previous conferences 19
  • 20. Lift package Not measured in previous conferences 20
  • 21. Attendance at Lift10 Not measured in previous conferences 21
  • 22. Attendance – previous Lift More “first timers” – up to 50% from 39% in 2009 22
  • 23. Attendees – type of work Similar results as previous years 23
  • 24. Attendees – type of org. Similar results as previous years 24