Eight points on the effectiveness of online events

Reading time: approx. 5 minutes

Are online events the new ‘live’?

Can events in the digital space actually be effective? Will there even be live events in the future?

Eight arguments as to why online events will continue to have a place in the future, ‘but’ are not the permanent panacea for motivating and engaging communication.

Well-organised, i.e. professional, online events are currently the only sensible and – in the truest sense of the word – ‘necessary’ way to reach large numbers of people simultaneously and effectively.

• Professional online events pleasantly surprise participants because they are innovative and give them the opportunity to actively participate in the proceedings.
• The dramaturgy of online events follows specific (technical, content-related and dramaturgical) principles. When applied, these principles lead to the effective communication of core messages, content and objectives, as well as to an emotional experience.
• Online events are significantly more labour-intensive for the organisers – but more efficient for participants and the budget.
• Engaging, involving, participating: the most important tools and mechanisms of live events can also be implemented in the digital space.
• Online events minimise the environmental footprint.
• The success of online events is more easily measurable and the return on investment easier to demonstrate.
• Online events broaden the spectrum of possibilities and the reach of live communication. After all, online events are also live. However, participants lack the physical proximity that is crucial for impact and motivation.
• And now to the important ‘and’: nothing replaces a real-life encounter. Nothing replaces the experience that engages all the senses. Genuine networking, just like genuine inspiration, cannot happen online. That is why live events remain the most effective events “and” will be complemented in future by the possibilities offered by digital events.

Are there any further arguments? Are our arguments correct? Are there any objections and/or a need for discussion?

I look forward to discussing this topic further: ck@whatwhenwhy.de