March 11, 2020. I had 14 in-person events scheduled over the next 90 days. Trade shows. Regional dinners. Customer roundtables. Executive briefings.
Total event budget committed: $240K.
March 13, 2020. Every single event was cancelled.
The CMO called an emergency meeting: "We need to figure out virtual events immediately. We can't go 90 days with zero event marketing."
I'd never run a virtual event. Our webinar program was minimal—maybe one webinar per quarter with 150-200 registrants and a 25% show rate.
Now I had to replace our entire in-person event strategy with virtual events I had no experience running.
The first virtual event was rough. We took our planned executive roundtable format (12 people, intimate discussion over dinner) and tried to replicate it on Zoom.
It didn't work. Twelve people on a Zoom call with no clear structure turned into awkward silence, people multitasking, and an hour of painful small talk.
We got 180 registrants. 42 showed up. 28 stayed for more than 15 minutes. We generated 3 qualified leads.
That first attempt was a disaster. But it taught me something important: Virtual events aren't just in-person events on Zoom. They're a completely different format that requires different design, different engagement tactics, and different expectations.
Eighteen months later, our virtual event program averaged:
- 1,000+ registrants per event (5x our in-person numbers)
- 35% show rate (up from 25%)
- 45-minute average viewing time (people actually stayed engaged)
- 180+ qualified leads per event (60x our first attempt)
Virtual events went from "emergency pandemic solution" to our highest-performing demand gen channel.
Here's what we learned.
The Format Mistake That Killed Our First Virtual Events
Our first five virtual events failed for the same reason: we were trying to replicate in-person event formats in a virtual environment.
What we tried:
- Virtual "roundtable discussions" (12 people on Zoom trying to have a conversation)
- Virtual "networking sessions" (breakout rooms where people awkwardly introduced themselves)
- Virtual "expo halls" (browsing booths in a virtual environment that nobody wanted to use)
None of it worked.
The problem: In-person events create energy through physical presence, serendipitous conversations, and social dynamics that don't translate to screens.
You can't replicate the energy of a conference floor on Zoom. You can't recreate the intimacy of a dinner table in a virtual breakout room.
The insight that changed everything: Virtual events aren't worse than in-person events. They're different. They have different strengths that in-person events don't have.
Virtual events are better at:
- Reaching larger audiences (no travel constraints)
- Delivering structured content (everyone can see and hear clearly)
- Capturing engagement data (we know exactly who paid attention)
- Follow-up at scale (everyone gets the recording and resources)
In-person events are better at:
- Building deep relationships
- Serendipitous conversations
- Creating memorable experiences
- High-touch executive engagement
Once I stopped trying to replicate in-person formats and started designing for virtual's strengths, everything changed.
The virtual event formats that actually work:
Format 1: Expert Panel + Live Q&A
Instead of trying to facilitate group discussion (which doesn't work with 200+ people on Zoom), we designed structured panels:
- 3-4 experts (mix of customers, industry leaders, and our team)
- Moderator asks prepared questions
- 30-40 minutes of discussion
- 15-20 minutes of audience Q&A (submitted via chat or Q&A feature)
Why it works: Attendees aren't expected to talk. They're there to learn from experts. The passive viewing experience is acceptable because the content is valuable.
Format 2: Workshop + Hands-On Exercise
Instead of lectures, we ran interactive workshops:
- Teach a framework in 15 minutes
- Give attendees a worksheet or template
- 10 minutes for attendees to work through the exercise individually
- 15 minutes to review and discuss results
Why it works: Asking people to actually do something keeps them engaged. They're not passively watching—they're actively participating.
Format 3: Customer Case Study Deep Dive
Instead of high-level "best practices" content, we ran tactical case study sessions:
- Customer presents their specific challenge
- Walks through their exact solution step-by-step
- Shows their actual results with real data
- Answers questions about implementation
Why it works: People want tactical, specific insights they can replicate, not generic advice.
What stopped working:
- Networking sessions (people don't want to network on Zoom)
- Roundtable discussions with >8 people (too many voices, no structure)
- Virtual expo halls (nobody browses booths virtually)
- Long presentations (>15 minutes without interaction)
The format shift—from trying to replicate in-person to designing for virtual's strengths—took our average viewing time from 12 minutes to 45 minutes.
The Engagement Tactics That Beat Screen Fatigue
By mid-2020, everyone had Zoom fatigue. People were in back-to-back virtual meetings all day. Asking them to attend another virtual event was asking them to stare at a screen for another hour.
Our show rates were terrible. 30% of registrants showed up, and half of those dropped off within 15 minutes.
The challenge: How do you keep people engaged when they're exhausted from screens?
What we learned:
Tactic 1: Shorter events win
In-person events can be 2-3 hours because the experience is differentiated enough from work to feel special. Virtual events are just another Zoom call.
We cut our virtual events from 90 minutes to 45-60 minutes. Show rate improved from 30% to 38%. Average viewing time increased because people knew it wasn't a huge time commitment.
Tactic 2: Interactivity every 5-7 minutes
We built interactivity into the event design:
- Live polls every 5-7 minutes
- Q&A prompts ("Drop your biggest challenge in the chat")
- Reactions and emoji responses
- Quick exercises or worksheets
Why it works: Passive viewing leads to multitasking. Active participation keeps attention.
Our events with polls and chat engagement had 62% higher average viewing time than passive webinars.
Tactic 3: Production quality matters
Early on, we ran virtual events with minimal production: someone's webcam, screen sharing slides, no graphics or polish.
These felt like internal meetings, not valuable events worth attending.
We upgraded production:
- Professional lighting and backdrops for speakers
- Lower-third graphics with speaker names and titles
- Branded overlays and transitions
- Multiple camera angles when possible
The result: Events felt more "event-like" and less like meetings. Perceived value increased.
Tactic 4: Make it easy to consume passively
We accepted that some people would multitask during virtual events. Instead of fighting it, we designed for it:
- Clear, well-designed slides (easy to follow even if not fully paying attention)
- Verbal summaries of key points (for people listening but not watching)
- Chat summaries every 10 minutes (recapping key discussion points)
People could listen while doing other tasks and still get value.
Tactic 5: Incentivize full attendance
We offered resources only to people who stayed for the full event:
- "Everyone who attends the full session gets access to our [template/framework/tool]"
- "We'll share the recording, but only full attendees get the worksheet"
This retention tactic increased completion rate from 48% to 67%.
What didn't work:
- Gamification (points, leaderboards)—felt gimmicky
- Mandatory breakout rooms—people hated being forced into small groups with strangers
- Long intros before content—people dropped off immediately
The engagement tactics took our average viewing time from 18 minutes to 45 minutes and our completion rate (% who stayed for full event) from 48% to 67%.
The Registration Strategy That 5x'd Our Audience
In-person events were constrained by venue capacity. Our typical executive roundtable had 20-30 attendees max.
Virtual events removed that constraint. We could theoretically have unlimited attendees.
But our first few virtual events still only got 150-200 registrants—about the same as our in-person webinars.
The question: How do we scale registration to take advantage of virtual's limitless capacity?
What changed:
Paid promotion became essential
For in-person events, we rarely used paid ads. The target audience was too narrow, and we didn't need massive registration.
For virtual events, paid promotion became our primary driver:
- $2-3K in LinkedIn ads per event targeting our ICP
- Google search ads for problem-related keywords
- Retargeting campaigns to website visitors
Result: Paid ads now drive 60-70% of virtual event registrations, vs. 10-20% for in-person events.
Partner co-marketing amplified reach
We partnered with complementary (non-competitive) companies to co-host virtual events:
- We both promote to our audiences
- Shared speaker lineup
- Split the lead list
Our co-marketed virtual events average 1,800 registrants vs. 600 for solo events.
We treated registration like a product launch
Instead of sending 2-3 emails, we ran 3-week multi-channel campaigns:
- Week 3: Announcement email + social posts
- Week 2: Value reminder + speaker spotlight
- Week 1: Urgency messaging + testimonials
- Day before: Multiple reminders
This campaign approach increased registration 3x.
We lowered the barrier to registration
For in-person events, we asked for full qualification forms (company size, role, budget, timeline) to limit attendance to qualified prospects.
For virtual events, we only asked for: Email, first name, last name.
We qualified people after the event based on engagement and survey responses, not upfront.
This change improved conversion from landing page visit to registration by 40%.
The result: Registration went from 200-300 per event to 800-1,200 per event.
With 35% show rate, that meant 280-420 attendees vs. 60-90 for in-person events.
The Hybrid Model That Combined the Best of Both
By late 2021, in-person events started returning. The question became: Do we go back to in-person, stick with virtual, or build a hybrid model?
The insight: Virtual and in-person serve different purposes. We needed both.
Our hybrid event strategy:
Virtual events for volume and reach:
- Monthly virtual events (panels, workshops, case studies)
- Goal: Generate leads at scale and deliver educational value
- Audience: 800-1,200 registrants, 300-400 attendees
- Cost: $5-8K per event (paid promotion + production)
In-person events for relationships and deal acceleration:
- Quarterly regional dinners and roundtables
- Goal: Deepen relationships with target accounts and accelerate deals
- Audience: 20-40 attendees (curated, high-value prospects and customers)
- Cost: $8-15K per event (venue, catering, travel)
Hybrid events (virtual + in-person simultaneously):
- Annual customer conference
- Quarterly executive briefings
- In-person attendees get the full experience
- Virtual attendees get live-streamed sessions and Q&A access
The hybrid execution for our customer conference:
In-person component:
- 200 customers invited
- Full conference experience (keynotes, breakout sessions, networking, dinner)
- High-touch engagement with product team and executives
Virtual component:
- 800 customers invited
- Live stream of keynote sessions
- Virtual breakout sessions
- On-demand recording library
Why this works:
- In-person creates the premium experience for top customers
- Virtual extends reach to customers who can't travel
- Content gets repurposed for months (recording, clips, blog posts)
- Combined registration: 1,000 vs. 200 for in-person-only
The economics:
- In-person only: $120K cost, 200 attendees, $600 per attendee
- Hybrid: $165K cost, 600 attendees (200 in-person + 400 virtual), $275 per attendee
Hybrid reduced cost-per-attendee while dramatically expanding reach.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Virtual Events
Most companies are still running virtual events wrong. They're either:
Mistake 1: Treating virtual events like webinars (passive, boring, low engagement)
Mistake 2: Trying to replicate in-person experiences virtually (awkward networking, virtual expo halls)
Mistake 3: Going back to in-person only (abandoning the reach and scale of virtual)
What actually works:
Virtual events aren't in-person events on Zoom. They're a different channel with different strengths.
Design for those strengths:
- Structured content delivery (panels, workshops, case studies)
- Interactive elements every 5-7 minutes (polls, Q&A, exercises)
- Shorter duration (45-60 minutes, not 2-3 hours)
- Production quality that differentiates from internal meetings
- Incentives to complete the full session
Use virtual for volume and reach. Use in-person for relationship-building and deal acceleration. Use hybrid for flagship events that benefit from both.
Don't abandon virtual events just because in-person is back. The 5x registration increase and lower cost-per-lead make virtual events too valuable to give up.
Our virtual event program now generates:
- 12 events per year (vs. 4 in-person events pre-pandemic)
- 12,000+ total registrants annually (vs. 800 pre-pandemic)
- 4,200+ attendees annually (vs. 600 pre-pandemic)
- 2,400+ qualified leads annually (vs. 180 pre-pandemic)
- $4.8M influenced pipeline annually (vs. $800K pre-pandemic)
Virtual events aren't a pandemic bandaid. They're a permanent part of our demand generation strategy.
The companies that figured this out early gained 18 months of optimization while competitors waited for in-person events to return.
The companies still trying to replicate in-person experiences virtually are wasting budget on events nobody wants to attend.
Design for virtual's strengths. Accept its limitations. Combine it with in-person for high-value engagement.
That's how you build an event marketing program that works in 2024 and beyond.