Ratings
| Pre-event communications | 80% Excellent or Good |
| Registration on Eventbrite | 88% Excellent or Good |
| Staff support at the venue | 87% Excellent or Good |
| Structure of event | 53% Excellent or Good |
| Quality of event content | 70% Excellent or Good |
| Your ability to participate fully | 40% Excellent or Good |
| The location of venue | 90% Excellent or Good |
| The accessibility of the venue | 82% Excellent or Good |
| Lunch and refreshments | 77% Excellent or Good |
| Length of sessions | 28% too long 68% about the right length |
| Breaktimes in between sessions | 55% too short 45% about the right length |
| Attended Annual Forum before | 65% yes 30% no 5% unsure |
| Likelihood of attending NECP events in the future | 73% likely 22% neither likely or unlikely 5% unlikely |
Selected commentary from the question: would you like to expand on any aspects of the day?
Length of sessions
“I found the length of the sessions without breaks to be quite difficult. Just an opportunity to get a drink of water on a hot day and visit the loo. I got to the end of the day feeling quite tired and worn out. I would have valued more opportunities for networking. It was lovely to meet people and see those that I hadn’t seen in person for several years. I thought there could have been some more imaginative decisions made about the projects that were focussed on. I think there could have been a better selection made that showed the breadth of creative and heritage activities across the region.”
“Expecting attendees to sit through and attempt to engage with 3-hour blocks of content with no breaks is totally unreasonable. It’s just not possible to maintain concentration for that long. Unfair on both attendees and speakers. These day-long events need a mix of formats – workshops, keynotes, provocations, etc. There wasn’t enough space for networking throughout the day. The day should have been structured around developing a clear output that moved C4C on – perhaps picking up on Steve Bishop’s comment – what’s our specific “ask”?”
Participation
“For future events it would support everyone’s participation if there was a variety of discussion formats. For example, at some points in the day it would be great to have a provocation followed by conversations in small groups (people sitting immediately next to each other) followed by chaired contributions from delegates. This would support networking and make the dialogue more two-way. Thanks to the organisers for all the work that went into the event. Here’s to the next one!”
“I felt it would have been more involving of the conference attendees if there had been more of a workshop/breakout element to the day – however I don’t have much experience of conferences, and perhaps it isn’t something that is suitable for this arena. I also had to leave at 2.30pm, so perhaps these things were addressed later in the day. I thought some great suggestions were made by people at the conference, and a visual record of this would have been good, as well as a summation of how things will move forward.”
“The content was very strong but there wasn’t enough time for discussion and networking. Perhaps focus on less content and have more time around them or arrange two days so that delegates can make a choice on subjects and attend both or one of the days. Altogether though it was evident much preparation had gone into the day with some very good speakers. Thank you very much for a stimulating day.”
COVID Safety
“I would have liked to see more covid awareness – distancing measures and sanitiser available – and measures for the shared microphone!”
Format, Logistics or Structure
“It would have been nice to have sessions which weren’t just listening to people talk. The seats were very uncomfortable. I think more breaks need to be planned for these things as it is hard to engage fully when sessions run on from each other. I would like to see bursaries for freelancers to attend the day as their voices are often missing.”
“Panels had some high-quality content. Focus on topical concerns re Case for Culture was good. Details of programme were circulated far too late. Accompanying material was much worse than previous forums – previously we had a Delegate Pack with speaker biogs etc, and it was particularly regrettable this time not to have a list of participants. Bit ironic that we had a session on EDI but were not a very diverse audience. Sage staff very friendly and efficient.”
Access
“I couldn’t see wheelchair access and there was no BSL interpreter. Everything was in English – a summary in some other languages would be good. No Braille.”
Diversity
“The events session felt irrelevant and incredibly traditional. There were no provocations. Many people spoke well, thank you but decidedly un-diverse and the same old faces, one in particular, who has dominated arts strategic policies for well over 20 years! Far, far too little time to discuss.”
Key takeaways:
- Shorter sessions and more frequent breaks
- More opportunities for discussion and active participation from attendees
- Providing delegate pack as per previous years
- Continue to improve Diversity and Accessibility
- New voices or new (not typically seen) speakers
- Covid safety/hygiene measures
Selected commentary from the question: were your access needs met?
Breaks or rest periods
“I don’t have any access requirements, but I did find the lack of breaks difficult.”
Captions and visuals
“My accessibility was addressed. However, I did think that having captions for presentations would have been appropriate, particularly for those where English isn’t their first language and those with hearing impairment. I also thought having larger font for the slides would have been helpful for those with bad eyesight.”
BSL and hearing loops
“No BSL interpreters and was video content captioned? Should be a given, never an add-on. Ideally should have been hybrid event – Difference North East ran a hybrid a few weeks ago and was fantastic.”
Stage access
“The stage appeared to be inaccessible – no ramp was visible. There was no BSL interpreter and no captions. There was no morning break.”
Dietary
“Effort to provide vegan catering etc was appreciated.”
Key takeaways:
- Accessibility as a standard and not because it is requested: BSL, ramps, captions, easy-read slides and visuals could all be a standard in future
- Consider online and real-life hybrid to widen participation
Selected commentary from the question: what did you enjoy about the Annual Forum this year?
Connections
“Seeing people I hadn’t seen for a long time, hearing about the research project and the draft findings.”
“Meeting up with people in person after such a long time on Zoom. The themes of the day were all very relevant.”
“Good to feel a sense of community again – together in person.”
Speakers
“The talk by Matthew feeding back on the findings.”
“Jill Cole’s Freelance discussion & Regional Events in particular.”
“Matthew Rooke was a very inspiring speaker and accessible.”
Content
“I think the subjects for panels were great. It was fabulous to get an update on the Case for Culture.”
“Hearing from a broad range of speakers on several different topics.”
“It was useful to take stock and there were some inspirational speakers.”
Key takeaways:
- Being with colleagues and connections in real life is important to people, and a ‘feel good’ factor
- Inspiring, articulate, passionate and prepared speakers are appreciated.
Selected commentary from the question: what could have been better about the Annual Forum this year?
Connection
“More chances to network and talk to colleagues during the day.”
“Contact details for speakers. It wasn’t possible to meet all of them and would save hunting for them through their organisation’s websites.”
Format, Logistics or Structure
“Shorter sessions with more audience discussion.”
“A better focus on timekeeping, making sure breaks are prioritised in the programme, more breaks (one in the afternoon session), making sure we finish on time, a BSL interpreter.”
Content
“More interaction during the sessions, greater use of the expertise amongst delegates, better-prepared contributions from presenters – the injection of energy.”
Key takeaways:
- Allow more space and opportunities for connection, conversation, and interaction between delegates and speakers
- More cadence and energy to the sessions, keep pace and timings with an MC
