Something I’ve noticed a lot recently when thinking about what events I want to go to is if I think the reason for going is the event itself, or the people who are at the event.
Some events, the main programming is engaging, challenging, fun, and real — real conversations about real things happening now. In other events, the programming is some variation of office bullshit — vague talks on vague subjects given by the usual talking heads.
In both cases, the programming itself becomes a great prompt for talking to people outside it. In the former case, it frames discussions for what we need to do next as a group in a really instrumental way. In the latter case though, this is entirely for the wrong reason (from the perspective of the promoter): some variation of “this is kind of bullshit, isn’t it, let’s go somewhere quiet and work out what we really need to do”.
Inevitably (at least for me), this is usually directly correlated with how much money is in the room. If it’s a funder, a local authority, a corporate sponsor, it will 4 times out of 5 end up being in the “bullshit, but at least we meet some cool people” camp. If it’s set up by a grassroots or movement org who is doing the work, 4 times out of 5 it’s the other way around.
I’m genuinely curious how aware organisers are of this. I think the money lets you be oblivious to the degree to which the real conversations are being forced out of the main space. Grassroots orgs on the other hand have skin in the game in the way big institutions don’t, so it’s in many ways a survival thing, our sessions have to be good.
I would love to imagine it’s possible to have both money and good ideas in the room — but perhaps something about the nature of capital makes it impossible, or at least very challenging. Still, I find this a really useful way to plan what I want to get out of going to any given event.