September 30, 2005

Seminars versus "sellinars"

The results of a recent survey by a software trade association showed that while spending was up for seminars, satisfaction was down.

The biggest complaint? People are tired of paying high enrollment fees and taking time off work for presentations that are nothing more than a thinly veiled sales pitch.

There are two primary models for seminars. The “seminar model” is to provide fantastic information with either no sales pitches allowed, or only a short mention of your products or services. The “sellinar model” (my term) is to have a lot of speakers give very little hard information, then segue into a compelling sales pitch.

Many seminar companies and speakers favor the “sellinar model”. Because the speakers are contractually obligated to split the profits with the seminar company, both make a lot more money than they would without the platform sales. Others feel that it’s a conflict of interest to charge a lot of money only to have the audience bludgeoned with non-stop sales pitches.

Personally, I think there has to be a balance between the two. Look, no speaker can possibly cover all aspects of a valuable topic in an hour or so. So it’s in the audience members’ best interest to be able to purchase further information on something they’re truly interested in. But you can also pack a lot of useful information into an hour, and I believe that each speaker is obligated to do so.

What do you think?

Posted by Bob Serling at 08:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack