Pay-to-speak but at what cost? This topic is definitely one getting a lot of attention, obviously from a vendor cash position standpoint, but also from a speaker, content provider, and attendee stance. In the past couple of years, we have seen many shows, particularly small conferences, open a new revenue stream by offering track “sponsorships” and allowing vendors to pay to be on the conference agenda. This raises some questions: Who should pay? How should it be disclosed that these sessions/tracks are sponsored? How do the shows let the attendees know that what is being presented has been paid for and could be promotional in nature as well as educational? Who controls the content if anyone with enough cash can buy their way onto the agenda?

On the flip side, can you blame the sponsor who has paid a lot for expecting something (a speaking slot) in return for a big check? Another issue that could come about in the future is the availability of CLE credits for these sessions. If the CLE accreditors knew that the sessions were purchased by vendors, would they approve them for credit? If not, what does that mean for attendees who rely on these CLE credits as a major pull for them to attend these conferences?

The summit discussion talked about the various pay-to-speak scenarios and issues and the overall conclusion was that shows need to be upfront about the status of each session. Basically, if the track has been purchased by a vendor, it definitely needs to be noted as such. Also, this discussion provided one absurd example. We were quiet shocked when notable consultant Michael Arkfeld mentioned an event organizer had asked him to pay to deliver the keynote address for a particular conference. Say what? We are sure this is an off-base example, but it sure is troubling…

Food-for-thought: What if the vendor community collectively rallied around this topic and took an authoritative, but solution-focused approach to pay-to-play opportunities? Why not work with the event organizers on developing guidelines that pinpoint how speaking opportunities are to be conducted and what sort of content is permitted? The event’s board or an oversight committee should be integral in monitoring this on a case-by-case basis. If nothing else, encouraging both show leadership and vendors to be forthright about what is being presenting would be refreshing.

A solution that seems to be working at many shows such as ALA and ABA is to offer “vendor workshops” where companies can purchase their way onto the agenda, but in a way that is transparent that it is sponsored. Then again, those sponsorships are sold for a fraction of the cost of sponsoring tracks…

{Topics 2-4 will be posted this weekend…}