What does a modern training portfolio look like? Usually, the classics are included: lectures, seminars, and day events. In the course of digitalization, trainers and other learning professionals will increasingly receive new tasks, and these new requirements will also be reflected in the training offerings. The focus is on guidance and support. This is achieved through various formats and methods, such as workshops (e.g., the World Cafe), webinars, blended learning concepts, tutorial support, as a content curator, or even as an administrator of a learning community.
Due to these diverse possibilities, a modern training portfolio may vary somewhat for each training topic. Each training measure has a specific orientation, meaning one or more objectives. In return, these training goals, expectations, and customer wishes can be formulated very concretely:
Shorter presence times (lectures, seminars, workshops)
Information on demand, when it is needed
Self-directed learning
More guidance and support in application
Long-lasting impact (both learning transfer and training transfer)
The continuing education market is in motion, and the professional profile of trainers and personal developers is changing. This transition from traditional training offerings to modern training offerings can cause headaches for trainers, consultants, and coaches. If you take a look at the congress program of Learntec 2017 or the summary of Learning2016 by Elliot Masie, you quickly get an overview of which topics are currently in demand.
How do you as a self-employed trainer or as an employee in a small training institute cope with this change? In the interview, Zach Davis explains how he has developed his training portfolio, what advantages he sees for himself personally, and what questions he faces in his work (approx. 6 minutes):
Further down, you will find the entire transcript of the interview. I would like to summarize the most important points of the interview for you:
How did Zach Davis get into the topic of E-learning online support?
For Mr. Davis, E-learning is not an end in itself. When he started, he was confronted with the question of what happens after his events. How should participants implement the content in their workplace? He noticed that this question of training transfer is also of great importance for his clients. The key to more sustainability for his in-person events lay in online support via E-learning. Through blink.it, he was able to support his participants even after the in-person event over periods of weeks and months. His goal was to put the training transfer and sustainability of measures at the center of the training offerings. He gradually expanded his existing training portfolio to include E-learning content. The online support of the courses primarily addresses the questions: “What happens after the training?”, “How can I help my participants implement the content?”.
These supportive E-learning contents were initially just emails in the follow-up. Then video content and reflection questions followed. To provide the online support in a bundled and user-friendly manner to the participants, Zach Davis decided to use blink.it. Another factor for him was that his employees, who are not E-learning authors, should also be able to administer the platform. His traditional training offerings continue to exist, as there are still clients who only want a 4-hour seminar with a good rating.
Structure of the training concepts
Zach Davis focuses on the preparation and follow-up of his trainings to ensure transfer. If you are wondering what barriers hinder the transfer, take a look at this report from the Neu-Ulm University. In consultation with the client, he tries, for example, to plan 50% of the time for presence, but also correspondingly 50% for support. Depending on client wishes, this can then involve content for preparation or follow-up.
Advantages for the trainer, clients, and participants
Planning together with the client leads to several advantages. Customer satisfaction and loyalty improve as a result. The client receives the training exactly as they wish and can determine the focus areas. This approach also allows for scaling the training offerings. It is no longer just the daily rate being sold, but the daily rate combined with the support. The transfer of basic knowledge does not necessarily have to take place in the seminar, as this is relatively expensive compared to the daily rate and not very effective (consider, for example, the spacing effect of learning). Instead, the online content for the basics of training is produced once and used repeatedly. For different target groups, the requested content can be supplemented. If it goes beyond the basics, the information needs before the in-person appointment can be covered, for example, with a 45-minute webinar. This is much cheaper for all involved, as travel etc. is eliminated, and participants can join from their computers at work. The participants are also happy because they do not have to spend the entire day in a seminar while accumulated work waits to be done. Participants can determine for themselves when to engage with the learning content. Here, an objection may arise: “They won’t do that anyway.” This is based on a generalization from individual cases to the whole. Because those who avoid engagement with the online support after a seminar also do so with a seminar or another training measure. Training participants who recognize the advantage and impact of short, concise content (exercises, implementation recipes, reflection questions) in the follow-up find the time (or are given time) to use this content.
The relationship between daily rate, time investment, and revenue with online support
The daily rate was previously the determining revenue lever in training. However, this daily rate is directly linked to the time investment and is therefore not scalable. Every person has only 24 hours and 365 days a year available. With online support, the daily rate is no longer calculated alone, but the daily rate plus the support. Compared to the simple daily rate, online support has the advantage of being created once and sold multiple times. Designed as a corresponding product, with one day of attendance, revenue for several days can be generated. The prices per participant should be set depending on the effort and scope of support. For you as a trainer, it is possible to supervise several groups in parallel without being on-site, which saves you considerable travel time.
What experiences have you had? Do you share Zach's observations? Leave us a comment or send us an email. We would love to exchange ideas with you.
The conversation with Zach Davis
Michael Witzke: Hello, I am here today with Zach Davis. First of all, thank you for taking the time to be here today. We want to talk a little about what can be easily done with online support blended learning and also what potentials exist specifically for trainers. And to perhaps help the audience get to know you first, could you say a few words about yourself? Who are you actually?
Zach Davis: Thank you very much for the invitation. After studying business administration and spending a few years in human resources consulting, in personal consulting at a consulting firm, I founded a training institute. This means I became self-employed. Back then it was already called an institute; now it is a bit larger, specializing in the topic of personal effectiveness, productivity enhancement, and workload reduction. That was in 2003, and since then I have been giving seminars and lectures on this topic, on the topic complex of time management or time intelligence, as I like to call it, and dealing with issues such as dealing with external control, increased demands, and managing information overload, providing pragmatic solutions for them.
Michael Witzke: So, you have been in the market for quite a while and already have some experience. What do you think has changed in the continuing education market in recent years?
Zach Davis: I believe that especially two things have changed. The first one is the client’s requirement or the more precise evaluation of the client, the contractor of what real value the measure brings. So, a bit of moving away from budget thinking, which I have always criticized a little. Spending money when the budget is there, or not spending investment in more challenging times when less money is available. For me, the most important question is: Is the investment in further training, in personal development worth it? If so, one should spend the money regardless of whether they feel they have a lot or little budget. And if the investment isn’t worth it, then one should also forego it. That’s one aspect is the evaluation from the financial or return perspective. The other one is that the actual framework conditions have worsened regarding the impact of downtime, in my opinion, it hurts more than it did in the past. The trend is clearly moving away from three or two-day seminars to one-day seminars. Ideally, clients and participants prefer to have everything done in two minutes or in the form of a tablet.
Michael Witzke: However, you probably used to also conduct traditional two-day seminars. What was your personal motivation to look for more? That there’s even more that can be done?
Zach Davis: For me, it wasn’t so much about having to offer something in E-learning or blended learning because that’s where the trend is going. This is undoubtedly the case, but for me, it was about the question of how I can make it easier for participants to implement more. Because let’s face it, I’m talking about my own trainings. Suppose someone has received 40 time-saving tips in a one or two-day training, whether jointly worked out or by me or other participants, and wants to implement many of these points. When asked again six months or twelve months later what has really changed or even trying to measure it seriously, the answer is often very sobering. If participants say they’re doing 2-3 points differently today, then that’s already a good job done by the trainer and the participants together.
Michael Witzke: How can I imagine that? How do you integrate the online content into your seminar context?
Zach Davis: Primarily in the follow-up to the in-person event. There are clear studies that show that when the focus shifts in the design to not only attending but also considering what happens after the training, the implementation rate and effectiveness significantly increase. Classically, little time is invested in the preparation before the in-person event, then there’s the in-person training, and perhaps a conversation with the superior afterward, which often lacks significant depth. If instead, one goes in and says the in-person event comprises only 50%, for instance, that’s open to higher or lower possible percentages, and 50% of the time, planning, and energy goes into what happens afterward. The question of how to implement it. Then, of course, the effectiveness and implementation rate will rise.
Michael Witzke: Okay, I understand. Now, for you as a trainer, someone standing in front of a group, what advantages arise for you from this? From doing this with online measures? Are there tangible benefits you derive from it?
Zach Davis: Well, on one hand, the satisfaction of the participants and thus the satisfaction of the clients, which strengthens customer loyalty. And if you look at it simply from your own economic perspective, there are, of course, scalability opportunities. That means, previously, in the past, let’s say I receive a request to train 100 managers on time management. And they assume that we are doing this in groups of ten for two days. Then we’re talking about 20 training days, and I might offer a daily rate of x, say 2000 euros or whatever, that would be a 40,000 euro investment. Now we go with only one day, sometimes even just a half day, and also in groups of twenty because we don’t need to communicate all the knowledge directly in the in-person event. We’re then talking about significantly fewer days in person. Good for the client with reduced downtime. Good for me because there’s less time invested, and naturally, most of the follow-up and support happen afterward online.
Michael Witzke: Does this then also mean that, if you have less personal time investment, the prices automatically decrease?
Zach Davis: In terms of the daily rate?
Michael Witzke: Or concerning the overall package?
Zach Davis: No, my revenue has remained relatively constant over the years. The difference is that I don’t conduct as many as 140 to 160 sessions a year as it used to be. A large proportion is day seminars, so if I do a two-day seminar, I count it as two engagements. And for a long time, it was around 150 sessions per year. That may sound like success and perhaps is, but it may not be desirable either. Now I have significantly fewer than 100 engagements per year with roughly the same revenue. I think you can calculate from that alone that it is an economically positive step with higher customer satisfaction.
Michael Witzke: So for me as a trainer, the chance lies in either earning the same with the same personal time investment or earning the same with less personal time investment.
Zach Davis: Exactly, for me, it was more about keeping the revenues steady, give or take, but with fewer absences. I have a family, we have four children. It’s nice to see them every now and then. And personally speaking, it makes a big difference whether you’re away for four days or two days, and yes, there are weeks like this week, for example, where I am away for four days from Monday evening to Friday evening, but it’s rather the exception than the rule.
