Meeting Model Survey Summary

Meeting Model Summary of Survey Results.  Survey conducted by the AMTF Meeting Model subgroup:

The eight organizations who participated in the survey are international as well as national.  They range in size from 56 (Council of State Archivists - CoSA) to over 6300 (American Association for State and Local History - AASLH) members.   All eight meet annually. 

The AASLH lists about 800 members attending their annual conference.  The next largest in attendace is

from the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA).  They total over 1000 members, and their annual meeting attendance is between 500 – 600.  

Seven of the eight groups meet in a single hotel, with one meeting in a convention center.  Six of the eight use a single conference hotel, with the other two using multiple meeting and conference hotels.  

Question 7 on page 4 of the Survey Results provides a list of possible options for meetings and how the organizations support these options.  Though the vast majority of the organizations do not offer live virtual conference stream or webinars during the conference, half do provide post conference access to recordings of their conference sessions.  Of those four, two organizations do not charge for this service.  [This may be a factor of members recording and posting these sessions themselves rather than working with a paid service.]  Half of the organizations also hold program sessions at local repositories or museums and either charge directly for this or include the price in their registration fee. 

Question 8 on page 5 asked about changes the organizations have made or may be considering for their meetings.  (Answers on page 12 of the Survey Results)  AMIA notes becoming less dependent on a single location for their meeting.  NAGARA lists stronger pre-conference offerrings. 

Three out of the eight hold section or other working group meetings at the annual conference and at another time of the year, with teleconferencing noted as providing that option.  Meeting the day prior to the larger meeting is also listed. 

 Questions 10 – 14 are budget related.  Question 12 (What percentage of the conference budget is derived from registration fees) varies widely from 0 to 80%.  Five of the six responders to Question 13 offer varying registration fees, based on member status and/or student status.

Question 15 asks how sponsors or vendors may contribute to conference costs.  Besides what is noted as options in the questions, one organization additionally lists session sponsors or social activities (page 15).

Also on page 15 are the responses to Question 16’s “dream list” for the different organizations’ annual conference.  One answer notes the challenge between “a more profitable conference” and keeping the conference affordable to members.  Recovery from the current economic downturn is one answer that likely applies to all respondents.  Improving the live feed from a meeting is another dream. 

Question 17 lists any additional information or suggestions by the organizations (answers on page 16).  The Australian Society of Archivists notes the importance of face-to-face interaction at the meeting, based on the backlash from canceling their 2011 conference due to the economy: “The annual conference is clearly a critical member benefit and should be preserved.”  CoSA notes their members prefer interactive, open discussion sessions more than traditional panels.  Web conferences provide a way for members to keep in touch in between meetings. These are free and focus on a topic of “high interest” and also include time afterward for discussion.