Before You Launch A New Conference, Make Two Commitments
There’s an exciting moment when someone says: “We should have a conference.”
The ideas start coming quickly. Who would attend? Where should we hold it? Who could speak? What would the experience look like? And before long, someone is researching venues and talking about dates.
But there are two commitments we believe organizations should make before launching a new conference:
Commit to determining whether the conference is truly viable.
If the answer is yes, commit to giving it enough time to succeed.
For many new conferences, that means thinking beyond Year One.
Commitment #1: Prove The Concept Before You Build the Conference
A good idea and a viable conference aren't necessarily the same thing. Before committing significant resources, an organization should understand whether there is enough demand — and enough differentiation — to support the event.
That’s where a feasibility study comes in. A conference feasibility study isn't simply about asking, “Do people like this idea?”
It should help answer much more important questions:
Who is the conference really for?
What problem does it solve for attendees?
Is the audience willing to travel for it?
What content or experiences would make attendance worthwhile?
Are there existing conferences already serving this need?
Is there enough sponsor or exhibitor interest to support the economics?
What registration price will the market tolerate?
How large could the conference realistically be in Years One, Two and Three?
What destination, venue and space requirements make sense?
And ultimately: Does the financial model work?
But there may be an even more important question.
Can 18 hours replace six months of work?
Time may be the most valuable thing you're asking an attendee to invest. Think about what professionals routinely do over the course of six months.
They schedule individual meetings.
Travel to see partners or suppliers.
Research new products and services.
Exchange dozens of emails.
Make introductions.
Compare solutions.
Attend webinars.
Have conversations with colleagues.
Follow up. Reschedule. Follow up again.
Could a conference could compress much of that work into a day and a half? If the answer is yes, the value proposition changes dramatically. The conference is no longer simply an educational event. It becomes an accelerator.
A well-designed conference can bring the right people, information, solutions and conversations together at exactly the same time. An attendee might hear from an industry leader in the morning, discover three potential solutions in a marketplace that afternoon, have dinner with a peer facing the same challenge that evening and meet a potential partner over coffee the next morning. Those aren't separate conference activities. Together, they're the product.
And that is why the feasibility process needs to go deeper than asking what keynote speaker might draw a crowd or what breakout topics should be offered. We need to understand what attendees are trying to accomplish in their businesses and determine whether gathering the right ecosystem in one place can help them accomplish it significantly faster.
Talk to the market before asking the market to register.
One of the most valuable components of a feasibility study can be conversations with industry leaders and stakeholders representing different segments of the potential audience. Not a mass survey. Actual conversations.
Present an initial concept. Share the thinking behind the conference. Discuss the potential format, timing, destination, content and economics. Then listen.
What takes them months to accomplish today?
Who do they need access to?
What information is difficult to find?
What conversations aren't happening?
Where are they traveling now and why?
Who would need to be in the room for them to say, “I can't afford to miss this”?
Those questions can tell us far more than simply asking whether someone would attend. They help determine whether the conference can create concentrated value. These conversations can also uncover assumptions that need to change long before deposits are paid, contracts are signed and registration opens. And they may identify something equally valuable: champions.
The people who believe in the concept early may eventually become speakers, sponsors, advisory committee members, exhibitors or advocates who help introduce the conference to the larger market.
Feasibility isn't about proving you were right.
A good feasibility study isn't designed to justify a decision that has already been made. It should be allowed to produce three answers:
Go - The opportunity is strong enough to move forward.
Go, But Go Differently - The opportunity exists, but the audience, format, timing, location, economics or scale needs to change.
Wait - The market isn't ready, the economics don't work or the concept needs further development.
Any of those outcomes can be valuable. Discovering that an event shouldn't move forward can save an organization hundreds of hours and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's not a failed feasibility study. That's exactly what feasibility work is supposed to accomplish.
Commitment #2: Don't Judge A New Conference Solely By Year One
If the feasibility work says go, we believe organizations should seriously consider making another commitment:
Give the conference at least two years to prove itself.
Year One is difficult. You’re introducing an event no one has attended before. There are no photos of packed general sessions. No attendee testimonials. No previous-year agenda. No sponsor success stories. No colleague saying, “You need to go to this.” You're asking attendees, sponsors and exhibitors to buy into a promise. That makes Year One fundamentally different from an established conference.
Year One builds the product. Year Two builds on proof.
The first conference creates something incredibly valuable: evidence. After Year One, you have attendee feedback. You know which sessions resonated. You understand registration patterns. You know where people traveled from. You can see which sponsorship opportunities performed. You have photos, video, testimonials and stories.
But there's another question worth measuring: Did we actually save people time? Did attendees make connections that would otherwise have required separate trips? Did they discover solutions they hadn't been able to find on their own? Did conversations at the conference accelerate projects, partnerships or decisions? Did the right people actually make it into the same room?
If the promise was that a day and a half together could replace months of fragmented effort, Year One gives you the opportunity to find out whether you delivered on it. And if you did, that becomes one of the most compelling reasons to return in Year Two.
Think in terms of a two-year launch.
Instead of treating the inaugural conference as a standalone event, consider approaching it as the beginning of a two-year launch strategy. Year One is about validation and experience. Deliver a strong event. Learn aggressively. Capture feedback. Document what works. Build advocates. And measure whether the conference actually created the concentrated value it promised. Year Two is about refinement and growth. Apply those lessons. Strengthen the program. Use testimonials and success stories. Deepen sponsor relationships. Improve the attendee journey. Bring more of the right people into the ecosystem. And begin building the community and reputation that ultimately make an annual conference sustainable.
Do The Work To Determine Whether The Conference Should Exist
If the answer is yes: give it a real opportunity to succeed.
Because the goal shouldn't simply be to produce a great first conference. It should be to create something valuable enough that people don't just attend, they’ll come back. If we can help you define the feasibility of a conference you’re considering, contact us.
Cheers,
Bethany