©Chris Lawton /Unsplash Recently, I moderated an ESAE webinar on “AI & Revenue Diversification Opportunities for Conferences & Events”. I went into the conversation expecting to talk mainly about AI. I came out of it thinking much more about data.
Associations are sitting on an incredible amount of information: membership databases, event registrations, surveys, newsletters, webinar participation, website interactions and years of conversations with their communities. And yet, a simple question kept coming back to me: how well do we actually know our members?
Having data and understanding people are not the same thing. Sometimes databases are not sufficiently up to date. Sometimes information sits in different systems that don’t speak to each other. And sometimes associations have spent years collecting data without being entirely sure what to do with it.
That matters far beyond membership management. It matters when we start designing meetings.
Before AI Changes the Event
There is understandably a lot of excitement about what AI can do during a congress: personalised programs, matchmaking, automated content, session summaries, translation and better hybrid experiences.I find all of that exciting too. But I wonder whether we are starting the conversation too late.
What if one of AI’s most useful roles happens before the event even exists? Used intelligently, the data associations already have can help identify what members care about, which subjects generate engagement, how different groups behave and, importantly, who is no longer engaging at all.
That last point is particularly interesting.
We naturally hear from our most engaged members. They attend our events, answer surveys, open our newsletters and participate in committees. But what about everyone else? Why did someone stop attending? Why are younger members underrepresented? Why does one part of the membership rarely engage?
AI can help us identify patterns. But it cannot do everything. Data can tell us where to look. People still have to tell us why.
And there is another uncomfortable reality: AI cannot compensate for poor data. If we don’t keep our information relevant, qualified and connected, the technology will simply give us more sophisticated ways of analysing an incomplete picture.
Perhaps the first step towards the meeting of the future is therefore surprisingly basic: know our members better.
Why Do We Still Meet?
Once we understand our members better, another question follows: why should they travel to a congress at all?
Information itself is no longer difficult to access. We can join a webinar, read research online or ask an AI tool to explain a complex subject in seconds. So offering more content cannot be the whole answer. What remains much harder to reproduce is what happens between people: challenging an idea, comparing experiences, disagreeing during a workshop or meeting someone unexpectedly over coffee.
This is where association congresses have something very special. They can bring practitioners, researchers, businesses, institutions and policymakers together around a shared purpose. Knowledge is not simply delivered from a stage. It is discussed, challenged and sometimes created in the room.
That means we should perhaps design meetings less around what do we want delegates to hear? and more around what do we want them to contribute?
AI cannot compensate for poor data. If we don’t keep our information relevant, qualified and connected, the technology will simply give us more sophisticated ways of analysing an incomplete picture.
Making Knowledge Travel Further
This is where technology becomes particularly valuable.
A three-day congress generates an enormous amount of knowledge through presentations, workshops, questions and conversations. Yet traditionally, much of that collective intelligence has disappeared once the meeting ended.
AI gives us an opportunity to organise and extend it: making discussions searchable, summarising themes, connecting related ideas and helping participants continue exploring subjects afterwards. Hybrid formats can take this further by opening part of the experience to people who cannot physically attend.
And that brings us to inclusivity. If associations exist partly to exchange knowledge, we should constantly ask: whose knowledge are we missing?
Cost, geography, physical accessibility, language, family circumstances and many other factors can prevent people from participating. A truly inclusive congress is therefore not simply one that people can access. It is one where more of the community has a meaningful opportunity to contribute.
Technology can support that. It should never become a substitute for the human encounter itself.
From Destination Supplier to Destination Partner
My own perspective on meetings has also been shaped by having worked in business development for a convention bureau.
At destination level, we naturally talk about connectivity, venues, hotel capacity and economic impact. All of these remain important. But associations increasingly need something more.
A destination is also an ecosystem of universities, researchers, companies, institutions, policymakers and communities. I saw this clearly in Brussels. For an international association, access to European institutions, policymakers or relevant local expertise could sometimes contribute as much to the objectives of a congress as the infrastructure itself.
The same principle applies elsewhere. Perhaps the conversation should move from “Can this destination host our congress?” to “How can this destination help us achieve our purpose?”.
This is also where advocacy, sustainability and legacy start to connect. Destination accessibility, transport, accommodation, local suppliers and local partnerships are not separate conversations. They are choices about how a meeting interacts with the place hosting it.
Start With the Outcome
Which brings me back to where all of this started.
Before selecting technology, designing a programme or perhaps even choosing a destination, associations should ask themselves a very simple question: What do we want to be different after this meeting?
Maybe members understand an issue better. Maybe policymakers have listened. Maybe research reaches people who can use it. Maybe younger professionals feel they finally have a place in the community. Maybe a new partnership begins. Or perhaps someone who couldn’t attend physically can still access and contribute to the knowledge created there.
Not every congress needs to change the world. But every congress should know why it exists.
The future of meetings will certainly involve AI, hybrid formats, sustainability, inclusivity and deeper destination partnerships. But none of these should be the starting point. The starting point should be understanding our communities.
Because before we can design better meetings, create meaningful knowledge exchange or talk seriously about legacy, we first need to know who we are bringing together and what they actually need from us.
This article is part of the exclusive partnership between ESAE and Boardroom.For more information about ESAE, visit www.esae.eu.