In late 2021, as travel restrictions eased but uncertainty persisted, we ran our first hybrid conference: the European Digital Policy Forum, with roughly 200 delegates in Brussels and another 80 joining remotely. It was, to be candid, a mixed experience. The in-person event worked well. The digital component was adequate at best. Since then, we have run hybrid elements at eight further events, and our thinking has evolved considerably.
The Core Problem
The fundamental challenge with hybrid events is not technical. The technology for high-quality streaming, remote Q&A and virtual networking is readily available and reasonably mature. The problem is experiential. Remote participants at a hybrid event almost always feel like second-class delegates. They can see the stage but not the room. They can submit questions but rarely get the spontaneous exchanges that happen in corridors and over coffee. The event is designed for the people who are physically present, and the remote component is an afterthought.
This matters particularly in the policy space. The value of a conference on EU governance is not primarily the content of the panels — much of which could be communicated in a written briefing. The value is in who you meet, what you overhear and the informal conversations that happen around the formal programme. A remote delegate gets almost none of this.
What We Tried
Over the past three years, we experimented with several approaches:
- Simple livestream with chat. The lowest-cost option. Remote delegates watch plenary sessions and submit questions through a moderated chat. Results: low engagement, high drop-off rates. Remote delegates often left after the first session.
- Parallel digital programme. Rather than streaming the in-person sessions, we designed a separate digital programme running concurrently, with its own moderators, shorter sessions and interactive elements. Results: significantly better engagement, but expensive to produce and logistically demanding.
- Asynchronous follow-up. Instead of real-time participation, remote registrants received edited recordings, written summaries and an invitation to a dedicated follow-up discussion one week later. Results: surprisingly positive. The follow-up sessions were well-attended and the discussion was often more focused than the live event.
Where We Have Landed
Our current position is pragmatic rather than ideological. We do not believe that hybrid is inherently superior or inferior to fully in-person events. It depends on the purpose, the audience and the resources available. Here is what we now do:
For our major conferences — events with 300 or more delegates — we offer a limited digital participation option based on the asynchronous model. Plenary sessions are recorded professionally and made available within 48 hours, accompanied by written summaries produced by our editorial team. Digital registrants are invited to a follow-up roundtable, typically held via video conference seven to ten days after the event.
For smaller, more specialised events — roundtables, working groups, closed-door sessions — we do not offer a digital component. The value of these formats depends entirely on the intimacy and candour of the discussion, and remote participation undermines both.
Practical Lessons
If you are considering hybrid formats for policy events, three points are worth bearing in mind:
- Design the digital component separately. Do not simply bolt a livestream onto an in-person event and call it hybrid. If you are going to serve remote delegates, design their experience from scratch.
- Be honest about the limitations. Remote participation at a policy event is not the same as being there. Do not oversell it. Price it accordingly and set expectations clearly.
- Consider whether hybrid is actually what you need. Sometimes the right answer is two separate events: an in-person conference and a standalone digital event on the same theme, held at a different time. This is more work, but each event can be designed to play to its format's strengths.
We will continue to refine our approach. The technology will improve and delegate expectations will evolve. But the underlying principle remains: every participant should have an experience that justifies their time and their registration fee. If hybrid cannot deliver that, we would rather do fewer things well than more things poorly.