I guess you gotta fight, for your right, to party.
In an email titled “An update on our event policy…” a representative from Inman News laid down some stringent policy changes regarding its event policy in relation to “unsanctioned parties”.
“In a few short months, nearly 4,000 industry professionals will gather in sunny San Francisco for Inman Connect. Each year, companies host dozens of parties and events that surround the conference, taking advantage of having the best of the industry in one place.
We’ve introduced a special sponsorship level for companies who host satellite events at Connect for 30+ people that provides additional visibility to attendees and influencers they hope to connect with, while ensuring that the Connect attendee experience isn’t compromised.
Due to the negative impact that unsanctioned parties have on the conference, we have implemented a more stringent event policy for companies who choose to host events at and around Inman Connect without directly participating in the conference as a sponsor. The policy will be strictly enforced and violations will result in revocation of attendee badges, speaker spots and other sanctions at the sole discretion of Inman.
Emphasis mine.
I would argue that instead of being a “negative impact” or having the event being “compromised” the amount of industry parties being held around the conference is a huge draw.
No doubt Brad and his team have done a great job in putting together a great show, but threats of revoking badges and speaker slots is pretty draconian by any standard. How is having a party any different than having a meeting in the lobby with someone? What’s next? Do they shut down the lobby bar or Starbucks in order to get more people in to the sessions?
I sincerely hope Inman News reconsiders this policy before Inman Connect in San Francisco.
It’s a Party Tax.
Expect to hear some of this:
“Hey, we’re innocent. We followed the rules and invited 29 people. I had no idea that 300 would show up.”
How much more corporate lame can you get. Will they have the Inman Gestapo roaming the city demanding to “see your papers”? It sounds like an Onion story.
I guess I’m curious how Inman plans to enforce this. Party inspectors? Informants?
Yes, how do you enforce this? And, you’d only be able to enforce it against registrants and sponsors (assuming you find the parties and identify those responsible).
I guess the smart move now is don’t officially attend/register and don’t sponsor the event. Then, you’re just an organization having an event that just happens to be near Inman Connect. Nothing they can do to stop anyone from having an event. Maybe they bar you from giving them money and being a sponsor next year? Oh, my gosh!
Rather than be the draw the other events have been (supporting Greg’s point, above), the new policy will drive people and organizations not to officially attend and not sponsor the event so they can have “satellite” events unfettered. Great move.
“I would argue that instead of being a “negative impact” or having the event being “compromised” the amount of industry parties being held around the conference is a huge draw.” Based on attendance at our parties, we would agree.
When’s W+R Studios’ event?
Honest question; When last Summer’s Connect attendee experience **was** ‘allegedly’ compromised on route to a party, was that a sponsored or unsponsored event?
“…professionals will gather in sunny San Francisco…” in August, really?
speakeasy…