Creating Positive PR
Ben Ramsey
In a previous message, I stated:
"The stories coming out of the event should be about how we had good
community-building in the 'hallways' and how we discussed X and decided
it was a good approach to software development or how Y would be a good
feature of the PHP language, etc."
Obviously, we can't force this at an event like this, but we can create
an environment to foster this kind of communication and
community-building, so let's start talking about elements we think lead
to a successful community conference of this kind and how we can
implement those elements to create this kind of collaborative
environment at PHP Appalachia.
--
Ben Ramsey
http://benramsey.com/
Brett Bieber
I think we could focus a bit more on the presentations.. get more
commitments out ahead of time re: talks.. but also plan more
un-conferency things... like lightning talks, coding sessions.
Internet connectivity could really help with that respect.
--
Brett Bieber
Brandon Savage
Brandon
Jeff Jones
So, we do need scheduled events, but I'd hate to see us just re-hashing the same standard format talks from Works and Tek to appear "professional". So for example, rather than a 1 hour talk on REST by Mr. Ramsey, we could instead have a 1 hr discussion with an official note taker or moderator to keep everyone on track. I also really enjoyed Brian Moon's presentation on how Dealnews did things. Because of the informal atmosphere, we also got to hear talks such as Matt's on Phergie. Which I found very interesting, as even though it's a personal pet project, the ideas and engineering behind it are applicable to other fields.
Overall, I think we should focus on the community hallway-track environment, where everyone is involved, vs the standard speakers & attendees at regular conferences.
-Jeff Jones
Jeff Jones
As for improving PR. I think perhaps the single best thing we could do is post all of the talks/notes from phpapp on the official blog. As well as some pictures of the sessions, etc. so we can make sure to present the technical/community events as the official image. (Just as phptek's website has pictures from the conference, not the attendees at the bar or in the hotel pool. :)
-Jeff Jones
Elizabeth Naramore
D. Keith Casey Jr.
> They are all perfectly fine and appropriate, imho and I personally think
> this whole thing is bullshit. If there is a group that wants to believe
> dumb rumors based on stupid twitter updates, tall tales told in IRC and
> photos from flickr then they can bite me.
And the stabbing story was my creation. If *anyone* read it and
believed it, I'm shocked. I mean seriously, it's completely a fantasy.
Ramsey write a book on security? ;)
The more I read on this, the more I'm coming to Liz's mindset. I talked
about this in my post, but despite all the fun and chaos that happened,
we did php things too. We had 10 regular sessions and then people were
sitting around hacking at things constantly. If we'd had a stable pipe,
I have no doubt we would have had a hackathon of some sort.
phpApp is *not* a regular conference. It's a gathering with a lot of
friendly faces. It's a chance to catch up with people, try out new
ideas (code, presentations, otherwise), trade tips and tricks, and
generally see what else is happening. That said, we need to remember
that some companies don't "get" the community and probably don't get
unconferences either.
If we want to appeal to them, their employees, and their budgets, we may
need to either a) show them what we are and why they should be
interested in us or b) change our behavior to get them interested.
Personally, I don't think we *need* to do either.
The community itself will pass judgment on the effort. If it grows in
interest, size, and appeal to the community, we're doing something
right... and the gathering will shift as the people and priorities do.
keith
--
D. Keith Casey, Jr.
CEO, CaseySoftware, LLC
http://CaseySoftware.com
Brandon Savage
didn't have to explain a thing to my boss despite the fact that he
follows me on Twitter. In fact he wants to come next year.
Business did get done at Appalachia. The function fgetcsv() got a new
argument as a result of a hot tub conversation. We held a roundtable
that produced a set of notes, and Elazar and I have been talking about
working on getting an alpha of the php trac done at tek. If those two
things were to become a reality then the weekend was very productive.
And those are just the things I know about.
Each of us has an obligation to help sell it to our employers as valid
and important. Eli brings up a good point that the perception of
employers and sponsors is important - but not the only thing that
matters. We owe it to ourselves - and those who will benefit from the
outcome of our weekend - to strike a reasonable balance between
professionalism and pleasure.
Just my thoughts.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 9, 2009, at 7:03 PM, "D. Keith Casey Jr." <ke...@caseysoftware.com
Joseph LeBlanc
is the kind of thing you do to chill out and spend time with friends.
Also, some of us just bite the bullet and take vacation time (or time
away from gigs): we don't need to "sell" the conference to anyone.
From what I remember last year, we were fully booked in the spring
and had a waiting list.
-Joe
Elizabeth Naramore
phpApp is *not* a regular conference. It's a gathering with a lot of
friendly faces. It's a chance to catch up with people, try out new
ideas (code, presentations, otherwise), trade tips and tricks, and
generally see what else is happening. That said, we need to remember
that some companies don't "get" the community and probably don't get
unconferences either.
If we want to appeal to them, their employees, and their budgets, we may
need to either a) show them what we are and why they should be
interested in us or b) change our behavior to get them interested.
And herein lies the crux of the issue.... for me, anyway. I don't think the original intent of the gathering was to appeal to them or their budgets. It wasn't made to appeal to anybody but the attendees. (Which is why it's $15 to attend, basically covering the cost of the t-shirt.) We had some very generous sponsors last year, and I really appreciated their generosity (and I honestly hope they got some good exposure out of it, not bad, from what seems to be going around).
But what bothers me is putting the cart before the horse. In my mind, the goal of the meeting is *not* to appeal to sponsors or companies specifically. If they come along and want to offer up something in the way of sponsorship, that's great, but I don't think the meeting should change its focus for that specific reason. Personally, I'd be just fine with zero sponsorships, a KOA cabin in the woods with shitty internet but awesome people to hang out with and learn from around the campfire. For me, it's all about the experience and the people.
If the conference is morphing into something different and more corporatey, that's fine too, it's just not my cup of tea.
Jeff Jones
Though it probably sounds cliquish, I'm much more worried about getting too many people than marketing the event. It's not that I want to exclude anyone, but there will come a point where we just have too many people. Last year we basically had one of the largest cabins in East TN, and we filled it up pretty good during the day. I think the limit of 50 last year is good, and that is pushing it.
Some events start small and keep growing and growing, I do not think this should be one of them. If PHPapp were to grow to 100+ people with corporate sponsorships with officially scheduled talks, etc, then there would likely be another event created to fill the niche of the original phpapp, because there is a desire to have an event where us friends can just "hang out and geek out". (If so, I propose #Toxichottub for the name ;)
As for selling to bosses, from what I've heard, for those who had bosses "in the know" enough to know of #Toxichottub etc, their bosses wanted to attend after hearing of last years. For the few I know who had to sell their bosses on going, the idea that they'd be getting presentations and learning from many of the thoughleaders of the phpcommunity seemed to work.
-Jeff Jones
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Ben Ramsey
> But what bothers me is putting the cart before the horse. In my mind,
> the goal of the meeting is *not* to appeal to sponsors or companies
> specifically. If they come along and want to offer up something in the
> way of sponsorship, that's great, but I don't think the meeting should
> change its focus for that specific reason. Personally, I'd be just fine
> with zero sponsorships, a KOA cabin in the woods with shitty internet
> but awesome people to hang out with and learn from around the campfire.
> For me, it's all about the experience and the people.
>
> If the conference is morphing into something different and more
> corporatey, that's fine too, it's just not my cup of tea.
Come on, people! I don't want PHP Appalachia to change it's focus
anymore than you guys. I was just trying to push us forward because the
conversation on this list is getting too negative and I wanted to
refocus us on accomplishing some constructive things here.
Mostly, my sentiments are the same as what Elizabeth and Keith
expressed. I just want us to move past this stuff and actually make some
real decisions about where we're going to hold this thing and when.
Also, lots of great things have been mentioned about the past PHP
Appalachia events, so let's be sure to highlight these things in all of
our "promotional materials."
Elizabeth Naramore
Come on, people! I don't want PHP Appalachia to change it's focus
anymore than you guys. I was just trying to push us forward because the
conversation on this list is getting too negative and I wanted to
refocus us on accomplishing some constructive things here.
Indeed, and I owe a quick apology to all -- it was not my intention to be argumentative or bitchy, so if I came across that way, I'm really sorry. I got a little offended and I shouldn't have.
Also, lots of great things have been mentioned about the past PHP
Appalachia events, so let's be sure to highlight these things in all of
our "promotional materials."
I think the cost is a big plus, as well as the opportunity to kick around ideas and brainstorm (thinking of the trac discussion we had)... it would be cool to see this type of round-table discussion again.
E.
Eli
point than I thought I had. Now not only with the location, but with
this as well.
For the record, I joined this list because well, first of all because I
was excited about possibly attending this year's conference, I'm
local-ish, and I figured that it would be helpful to all the current
planners (who were all attendees last year) to also get the insight of
someone who did NOT attend.
It was not with intent to upset anyone, nor to try to 'control' things.
It was simply under an assumption that the organizers would want all
the information possible at their disposal, to make informed decisions
based upon it.
In any case, I'm sending a couple of responses, then probably leaving
the list, as it seems my presence here is polarizing instead of helpful.
Elizabeth wrote:
> I'd also like for someone to tell me where these wrap up blog posts have
> gone astray or made readers believe it was just a giant party with no
> redeeming quality whatsoever.
As I stated Elizabeth, the impression came primarily from the Tweets
that happened during the conference, as well as many conversations that
happened after the fact (at ZendCon for example). Which always focused
on how 'crazy' the weekend was.
Many side conversations happened. As I said, the second I mentioned
PHP appalachia as an 'event' I felt that HAD to be on my list of
'mandatory attendance' at Zend ... I immediately got bombarded with
questions about how it's really just a big party, and I had to justify
that no, serious community building & PHP talk did happen there.
My point was simply this: "There are a number of folks out there who
got negative vibes from what they 'heard' about last year's PHPapp".
IMO, it's important for you guys to know that. If you choose to say:
"Screw 'em", that's fine. If you choose to take that into account, and
try to 'fix' that impression, that's fine.
Elizabeth wrote:
> If there is a group that wants to believe
> dumb rumors based on stupid twitter updates, tall tales told in IRC and
> photos from flickr then they can bite me.
I'm sad that you aren't interested in correcting those people's
perceptions, to let them know that it was the amazing event that I've
been told that it was, and that I was excited to attend. But that you
are ok with letting them continue to believe that PHPapp is what they think.
Elizabeth wrote:
> It was supposed to be
> about having a good time with friends, and a little PHP and geek
> talk thrown in the mix. And now we're being chastised for focusing on
> the "fun" aspect.
I think the problem here is one of perception. Which is what I was
trying to help get across. The difference between the 'knowledge' of
those that attended have as to what the event is/was ... and the
perception that I'm trying to portray that some other people have of the
event.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a good time with PHP
friends, and maybe having a little geeking. None at all.
But PHP appalachia WAS in fact promoted in many instances, as a
conference/barcamp/uncon kind of 'thing'. An informal/relaxed one, sure
(ala barcamps), but nonetheless.
The website itself uses the words un-conference and conference in
numerous places, and talks about it being "a gathering like this provide
you with an outlet to expand and share your knowledge on a professional
level"
It's name screams of a 'conference', it has sponsors, it was promoted
well enough as a 'conference' that Dealnews decided to pay to send it's
whole team to it as one of their annual conference attendances. When I
interviewed with Deal News it was mentioned.
etc.
So the point being, if you want to have a gathering of a core group of
friends to just hang out for the weekend, cool, awesome, go wild, I may
join you. But stop calling it conference, stop asking for sponsors,
don't make a public call for people to attend with great promotion text
saying how professionally important it is, etc ... and then there are no
issues. Cause it's just some folks getting together to party. And
that's ok.
And again, I'm just trying to convey a POV that I know various folks
have. Which was that it was 'talked about' as if it was a
conference/uncon/barcamp, but turned into a drunken hot tub party.
Personally (and truly, the one and ONLY personal thing I've said in this
whole discussion. Is that I do hope that instead it does get a little
'focused' towards PHP community / Interaction. Since then I can justify
attending on Zend's Dime. (And DealNews guys can on their dime, etc)
... instead of having to foot my own bill. That being said, if instead
it's promoted as a 'party in Gatlinburg', then so be it, I'll still be
there if I can.
Keith wrote:
> I talked
> about this in my post, but despite all the fun and chaos that happened,
> we did php things too. We had 10 regular sessions and then people were
> sitting around hacking at things constantly. If we'd had a stable pipe,
> I have no doubt we would have had a hackathon of some sort.
>
> phpApp is *not* a regular conference. It's a gathering with a lot of
> friendly faces. It's a chance to catch up with people, try out new
> ideas (code, presentations, otherwise), trade tips and tricks, and
> generally see what else is happening.
[...]
> The community itself will pass judgment on the effort. If it grows in
> interest, size, and appeal to the community, we're doing something
> right... and the gathering will shift as the people and priorities do.
Keith, I agree. But that gets back to my point. All I was trying to do
was say: "Hey guys, I know from being good friends with a number of
you, and chatting with you, what a GREAT event it was. It's absolutely
something I would want to send my employees (if I had any) to, because
it's a GREAT situation to grow"
HOWEVER ... many people don't see that. I was just trying to present
the appearance that many have. It was my assumption (perhaps highly
mistaken now), that you would want to change that appearance, and let
people know about how awesome it is to attend, even if there were no
parties.
Instead of people thinking that all that happened, was parties, police,
and emergency rooms. PHP gone wild? ;)
Jeff wrote:
> I think the limit of 50 last year is good, and that is pushing it.
Just as another point to throw out, this concept worries me. Whether or
not a clique exists, the appearance of a clique can be as bad as a
clique really existing. If, as people say, there is alot of interest
in more people wanting to attend, then great, they need to be allowed to
attend, or at least, things should be setup in a way, IMO, that expects
a growth in attendance.
IMO, it would be 'bad' visually, if the statement was made: "We were at
50 last year, that worked, let's stay at 50 this year". Because that
means that it's going to be the same crowd, year to year (with slight
variation). And with lots more folks 'wanting' to attend, it will
become a case of the haves, vs havenots. It will turn into FooCamp, of
which BarCamp was born.
The appearance of a clique will happen, and it will cause negative
impact down the road.
This is just my life experience talking, from seeing this kind of thing
happen in my non-profit org on a cycle of about every 5 years ...
In any case, as I said, I obviously stepped into a hornet's nest, and
didn't mean to. I was trying to help.
I'll leave and let you guys get back to planning what I hope will be an
excellent 'whatever' with 'whatever' message coming across about it.
Eli
Eli
> commitments out ahead of time re: talks.. but also plan more
> un-conferency things... like lightning talks, coding sessions.
> Internet connectivity could really help with that respect.
While it's up to you guys ...
I would say that it would be great to focus on the fact that this is a
'unique' event/uncon/etc ... and to completely pull away from the
'talks' concept as much as you feel comfy.
Planning cool stuff that otherwise wouldn't happen at a conference but
can at this, could be great, such as 'random topic talks', hack-a-thons,
TestFest (late) submissions, 'Hack the PHP Core day' ...
Or maybe having lots of round-table type discussions. Set aside an hour
for 'discussing SOAP'. But without someone giving a SOAP presentation.
etc
Anyway, just random thoughts that could be coolness.
Eli
Matthew Turland
trickle onto the list, to find 33 new messages. Seriously, guys... do
I need to pull this event over to the curb, turn around, and give you
all a stern talking to or something?
I think Eli tried to contribute feedback and felt backed into a corner
partly because he's one of the few on the list who wasn't in
attendance last year (and thus has a somewhat limited perspective on
the event). I'm not saying I agree with his viewpoints, at least not
entirely. Aside from getting the impression after the event last year
that the DealNews guys were expecting a more traditional conference
and that obviously wasn't really what Appalachia was, I heard nothing
negative said about the event. I think the list of blog posts Liz
provided sums that up fairly well. You can probably find drunken
tweeting happening at traditional conferences if you're actually
looking for it. That doesn't negate their professional merits. And for
the record, if you find yourself in a corner, I find it's best to
stop, take a breath, zip it for a while, and just keep your ears open,
not take your ball and go home. (Sorry, personal button.)
I do agree with Eli insofar as that, while we shouldn't feel pressured
to change our behavior for the sake of public opinion, we should
present an honest picture of what we plan for the event to be
(regardless of what it is). However, it obviously wasn't a conference
in the sense that php|tek or ZendCon are conferences, and I think
using the term does leave an opening for misunderstanding. Perhaps
it's worth considering to accentuate the social aspect and remove use
of the term "conference" simply to avoid confusion and disappointment
on the part of prospective attendees.
In an ideal world, sure, we'd have all our ways paid and/or the event
completely sponsored by companies who saw that it has merits just as a
traditional conference does, even if it has less structure and direct
professional agenda (as it should since that's part of its appeal).
Obviously, we're not in an ideal world. I agree that we shouldn't
change the nature of the event to please sponsors or employers. While
having support from both is helpful, I don't think it's essential to
making the event happen. Personally, my wife and I paid our own way
last year, I scheduled vacation time from work, we got family to sit
for the kids, and we drove there (which we admittedly would prefer not
to do again this year, as it's a fairly long drive). For what I got
for all of the effort put into making those arrangements, I have
absolutely no regrets. If I have to pay out of pocket and take
vacation time again to attend, so be it. If you can't do the same,
sorry, you'll be missed.
In terms of location, I don't generally care for touristy cities
(though there are certainly good things about Gatlinburg). However, I
don't think I'm well-traveled enough to suggest alternatives. That
said, if the consensus is Gatlinburg, I'm fine with that. I still
encourage that an open mind be maintained about location, but if you
can't provide details about a location that make it a suitable
alternative to the current options for most of the prospective
attendees, just don't be surprised if it's not accepted.
As far as attendance goes, while I agree that too many people might
spoil the event as we know it last year, I also don't see the need to
deny people attendance. I think we should plan for overflow, possibly
even go so far as to get multiple lodges if the numbers are feasible
for it. Even if we can't all be in the same place at the same time for
most of the event, I think the potential relationships formed are
worth trying to conduct the event that way if necessary. Ideally, we'd
have another lodge or multiple cabins fairly close by, not just a
hotel where people can stay if we run out of beds at the main lodge
we're renting. Obviously, that's a bit of a catch-22 since we know to
know how many people to know what to rent and vice versa, but I think
we can manage figuring that out as more people register.
Disclaimer: random wild and crazy idea ahead -- no schedule. We can
throw in ideas for things we'd like to do or talk about, you can come
prepared to present if you want to, but leave it until we're all there
to decide what we do. I think the spontaneous and democratic nature of
the event is part of what made it special, so if it's going to be
largely that way, I say be entirely that way. As well, plans can't be
spoiled if for some reason a commitment has to be broken because
someone who planned to be there can't be. Also, while I certainly
encourage bringing local spirits and food items, I'd say let's try to
keep the latter to a minimum and just pool money to buy groceries
(either as needed or as part of the event fee) at the event so we end
up with less wasted or residual items come the end of it.
On a related note, I agree with Jeff that we should all make a point
to blog about the event this year. (I know, I'm guilty of not doing so
last year, and I plan to address that this year.) As well, if and when
possible, we should try to record parts of the event. Photos, audio,
video, streaming, whatever we can manage. Let's help to show off the
event for the fun time that it can be as authentically as possible to
people who can't attend. I know a lot of people regretted not being
able to make it last year, and I actually hope the same can be said
about the event again this year simply because it was just that
awesome.
Sorry for the long semi-rant/reflection, but hopefully it's been more
positive than not. Do know that I'm very much looking forward to PHP
Appalachia and believe it will be one of the highlights of the year
for me to look back on once it's passed.
Matt (Elazar)
Elizabeth Naramore
Going back to the topic of sending a clearer message about PHP App, I've contacted Brian (not only to apologize to him and the DealNews guys for the misconceptions) but to elicit some feedback from him on how we can make it clearer that it's not a formal conference and that fun is still going to be a big part of it. This perception was all news to me, and I feel bad that they walked away with a negative vibe.
Besides blogging about the conference, from what Eli said, we need to update the website also to make it clearer that it's not a formal thing (and especially the part about the "professional setting".) Eli, I tried to find that on the current phpappalachia.org site but I couldn't ... if you point me to where that is, I'll make sure that's not on there :)
Maybe we should also reconsider the acceptance of "sponsors" if that's going to create confusion about the reason we're getting together.
Thoughts?
-E.
Matthew Turland
wrote:
> Going back to the topic of sending a clearer message about PHP App, I've
> contacted Brian (not only to apologize to him and the DealNews guys for the
> misconceptions) but to elicit some feedback from him on how we can make it
> clearer that it's not a formal conference and that fun is still going to be
> a big part of it. This perception was all news to me, and I feel bad that
> they walked away with a negative vibe.
> Besides blogging about the conference, from what Eli said, we need to update
> the website also to make it clearer that it's not a formal thing (and
> especially the part about the "professional setting".) Eli, I tried to find
> that on the current phpappalachia.org site but I couldn't ... if you point
> me to where that is, I'll make sure that's not on there :)
post...
http://phpappalachia.org/archive/50
... which contains four instances of the word "professional." That's
the only place on the site that Google mentions it, anyway.
> Maybe we should also reconsider the acceptance of "sponsors" if that's going
> to create confusion about the reason we're getting together.
that this was more of a vacation than a conference. Maybe those with
employees who are attending? In any case, so long as sponsors know
what they're sponsoring, I don't see an issue with it. If none offer,
I don't see a reason to let that hamper us continuing forward as
planned.
Ben Ramsey
> Maybe we should also reconsider the acceptance of "sponsors" if that's
> going to create confusion about the reason we're getting together.
Can you elaborate on exactly what sponsor money was used for last year?
Did sponsor money offset the cost of the cabin? If so, by how much?
I ask because I'm wondering whether sponsors are even needed. That is,
should we even bother soliciting sponsorships? If a company approaches
us, knowing what the event is about, and wants to sponsor us, then
that's fine, but are we in a position where we need to look for sponsors?
Elizabeth Naramore
Can you elaborate on exactly what sponsor money was used for last year?
Did sponsor money offset the cost of the cabin? If so, by how much?
I ask because I'm wondering whether sponsors are even needed. That is,
should we even bother soliciting sponsorships? If a company approaches
us, knowing what the event is about, and wants to sponsor us, then
that's fine, but are we in a position where we need to look for sponsors?