November 19, 2010

Summary of Satisfaction Survey Results for Fall 2010 Communications Network Conference

You Came, You Took Part, You Spoke -- And We're Listening

For the past several years, the Communications Network has been positioning our annual conferences as both learning and networking opportunities. Well, it turns out, there are plenty of learning and networking opportunities for us, too. We learn each year – from what we see and observe at the conference – about what works (who the best speakers are, the kind of content people like best, as well as formats that seem to be the most engaging). We also see and hear about what we can do differently. In addition, our own involvement in the conferences helps us gets us to know people in the Network better -- information we can use to plan programs and activities that take place in between events. That’s why we’re especially grateful that nearly half of the 300 who our attended (and set a record for this year’s event in LA) took the time to complete our post-conference survey. What did you tell us? Here’s a summary of the findings: • Overall Takeaway: Thumbs Up for the Format! An impressive 93% of respondents rated overall satisfaction with the Los Angeles conference “excellent” or “good” (split nearly in half between the two ratings). We scored better among attendees who’ve been to previous conferences – some 6 in 10 rated it excellent. Only about a third of new attendees rated it excellent and half rated it good. In specific comments, some people said we needed to do better on welcoming first-timers, especially at the opening reception. In other of the open-ended comments, respondents rated the Los Angeles conference better overall than previous conferences. Many said the format of the conference and programming was significantly better this year. There was high praise overall for having multiple plenary talks followed by breakout sessions. Speakers themselves also were better this time around. The conference facilities got strong ratings and attendees liked having the meetings and the hotel in one place.

2

For some, however, the content did not have enough practical applications to take back to their foundations. And some people asked for an even greater focus on new media. • Other Overall Format/Programming Findings: Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents said that the conference had the right mix of plenary, breakouts and networking activities. 12% of respondents wanted more networking time. 10% said this conference had too many plenaries. 6% said there were not enough breakouts. • Ratings for Speakers and Breakout Sessions: We asked our speakers to lay out some big themes, discussion items, and set the groundwork for follow-up breakouts and workshops. How'd they do? Those ranked as the conference favorites – in order of their overall ratings -- were Steve Lopez, James Surowiecki and Sendhil Mullainathan. Favorable verbatim comments about the speakers covered the gamut from "amazing" to "informative" to "fabulous." Some weren't as enthralled and thought our speakers should have done more to connect their expertise and knowledge to the work of foundation communicators. As for how the conference planning committee chose to stage the presenters, one person wrote, "I thought Surowiecki and Mullainathan were nice bookends - the wisdom of groups helps mitigate some of the irrational' decisions of individuals." The discussion groups were designed to give attendees a chance to dig more deeply into the presenters' topics and kick around ideas in an informal session, under the guidance of a facilitator. Based on ratings of the five discussion groups, those focused on Mullainathan’s and Lucy Bernholz’s talks were the two best. Discussions about the Lopez and Neal Baer presentations followed in popularity. We planned the workshops to give people a chance to learn some new skills on topics related to the plenaries. The two top ones were storytelling and strategies for community news reporting. Both the discussion groups and workshops seemed to win praise for giving people a chance to talk among themselves after hearing the speakers lay out their themes and big ideas. As one person wrote: “they allowed lots of people to join the conversation and participate." Others offered valuable suggestions should we repeat this format. Some suggested the breakouts should have been longer to provide more time "for deep discussion or peer learning." That parallels the comment that "longer workshops would be terrific so that we could try applying or interpreting these outstanding ideas to our challenges." Having both Tracy Gary and Mullainathan stay and take part in breakouts that followed their

3

talks is something respondents said we should get all speakers to agree to in the future. For instance, one person wrote that it was nice being able to continue asking Mullainathan questions in the breakout, and similarly another mused that the session that followed Suroweiki's talk would have been better "if the keynoter had been in the room." We certainly agree that the format was a work in progress, and we also take heart from one respondent who wrote: "you're on to something." Respondents also provided helpful comments about the speaker/breakout conference design with most seeming to prefer this year's smaller number of total offerings. Said one respondent: "I liked the fact that the structure was very focused on a few key talks and themes. In the past, I've felt overwhelmed by the number of sessions offered and frustrated by having to choose (and then feeling like I chose the wrong one)." Another said the "plenary session/feedback session format" is what really made this "conference stand out." Needless to say, not everyone agreed, and more than one respondent made comments similar to this person's observation that there wasn't "enough hands-on stuff that you can immediately incorporate into your daily work." • Despite a Few Gaffes--“Plates, Please!”--Social Activities Won Praise The meeting site itself was one of the most highly rated aspects of the conference. Some 97 percent gave the JW Marriott site a combined “excellent” and “good” rating. The opening night reception on the Target Terrace on top of the Grammy Museum was rated a bit lower than other aspects of the conference (but higher than the second night’s outing). Over a third (37%) said it was “excellent,” and another third (38%) said it was good. Most of the commentary was quite positive, but the critique voiced most frequently was that the band was too loud or that the music was simply inappropriate. Still, a strong contingent said they liked the band and that it added to the evening. Meanwhile, a few noted that having a band would have been better the second night, after attendees had many opportunities to greet friends and meet new people. Not surprisingly, first-timers were much more likely to say that they wished there were some structured ways to meet people at the opening event. Even though the second night’s social activity, an outing to the Annenberg Beach House, was rated slightly lower than the opening reception, it was still described as “excellent” by nearly a third (29%) and “good” by another third (37%). Almost everyone seemed to be vexed by the time spent on the bus to the reception in rush-hour traffic (the most common complaint), although a few noted that they did have some great conversations on the bus. Still, many said that the distance, the fact that it was too late in the day to enjoy the setting sun and the beach view and the lack of staggered busses to allow freedom of departure all added up to a certain level of disappointment. Despite that, there was a very high level of enthusiasm for the beauty of the setting, which engendered almost as many comments as the length of the bus ride. The other

4

major criticism of the event focused on the lack of plates and utensils for the food. The food itself was loved by about as many as those who expressed ambivalence about it. A few respondents thought the room was a tad too small for the number of people, and one or two said they wished that they’d been given some direction on what to wear to the event. • What Can We Do Better? We were heartened to hear that 60% said the Communications Network had done an “excellent” job in preparing attendees for the conference with the materials, emails and other information sent out in the lead-up to the meeting. Another 32 percent said it had done a “good” job with preparation, but we are certainly open to any ideas folks have about improvements for 2011. When asked, “What else would you like us to know?” the most frequent topic was the nature of breakout sessions. Some want general improvement in the content presented in them, some want more time devoted to them, some want more choice of breakouts and some want more fulsome descriptions of them ahead of time. The next most common comment was a desire for more structured networking time, and relatedly, more time devoted to unstructured networking or having the breakfast roundtables better organized. The only other topics that had more than a few comments were on the desire for more focus on social media topics, more practical skill development and compliments to the hotel and its staff. A Few Final Thoughts We were thrilled to hear that, since returning from LA, 94% of our survey respondents said they had talked to others about the conference, and of those, 93% said they had talked about it in positive terms. We were also very pleased to see that 91% of survey respondents said they plan to attend next year’s conference in Boston. We value absolutely every piece of feedback we receive, and the comments provided in the survey helps keep us driving hard to make our programming – and the Network itself -- all that you need and want it to be. One of our main of objectives in building a learning community is for all of our Communications Network members to know that they don’t have to go it alone. Please let us know what you think of these survey findings and give us any new thoughts you have on what we can do better next year.