What does a modern training portfolio look like? Typically, it includes the classics: lectures, seminars, and one-day events. In light of digitalization, trainers and other learning professionals will increasingly take on 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 Café), webinars, blended learning concepts, tutorial support, as a content curator, or as an administrator of a learning community.
Due to these diverse possibilities, a modern training portfolio will likely be composed somewhat differently for each training topic. Each training measure has a specific focus, meaning one or more objectives. Conversely, these training goals, expectations, and customer wishes can be formulated very specifically:
Shorter in-person times (lectures, seminars, workshops)
Information on demand, when it is needed
Self-directed learning
More guidance and support in application
Sustainable impact (both learning transfer and training transfer)
The continuing education market is in motion, and the role of the trainer and personnel developers is changing. This transition from classic training offerings to modern training offerings can cause headaches for trainers, consultants, and coaches. Looking at the congress program of Learntec 2017 or the summary of Learning2016 by Elliot Masie, one quickly gets an overview of what topics are currently in demand.
How do you, as a self-employed trainer or as a staff member in a small training institute, cope with this change? In the interview, Zach Davis introduces how he has developed his training portfolio, what benefits he sees for himself personally, and what questions he faces at work (approx. 6 minutes):
Further down, you will find the complete transcript of the interview. I would now like to summarize the most important points of the interview:
How did Zach Davis start with 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 the participants implement the content in their workplaces? He noticed that this question of training transfer is also of great importance to his clients. The key to greater sustainability for his in-person events lay in online support via E-Learning. With blink.it, he was able to accompany his participants even after the in-person event over periods of weeks and months. His goal was to make training transfer and the sustainability of measures the focus of the training offerings. He gradually expanded his existing training portfolio by adding E-Learning content. The online support for the courses primarily addresses the questions: “What happens after the training?”, “How can I help my participants implement the content?”.
Initially, this supportive E-Learning content was simply e-mails in the follow-up. Then came video content and reflective questions. To provide the online support in a bundled and user-friendly manner to the participants, Zach Davis chose 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 classic training offering remains intact because there are still clients who only want a 4-hour seminar with a good rating.
Structure of Training Concepts
Zach Davis focuses on the preparation and follow-up of his training to ensure transfer. If you wonder which barriers hinder transfer, take a look at this report from Neu Ulm University. In consultation with the client, he tries, for example, to plan 50% of the time for the presence phase, while also allocating 50% for support. Depending on customer wishes, this can then involve content for preparation or in the follow-up.
Benefits for Trainers, Clients, and Participants
Planning with the client leads to several advantages. Customer satisfaction and customer retention are improved. The client receives the training in the form they desire and can set priorities. This approach also allows for scaling the training offerings. Not only is the daily rate sold, but also the daily rate in combination with support. The transfer of foundational knowledge does not necessarily have to take place in the seminar since it is relatively expensive and not very effective (consider the spacing effect of learning, for example). Instead, the online content for the foundational aspects of the training is produced once and reused. For different target groups, the requested content can be supplemented. If it goes beyond the basics, the information needs can be met before the in-person date, for example, with a 45-minute webinar. This is significantly cheaper for all involved, as travel costs, etc., are eliminated and participants can join from their workplace computers. Participants are also pleased because they do not have to spend the whole day in a seminar while their backlog of work accumulates. Participants can determine for themselves when they engage with the learning content. Here, the objection could arise: “They won’t do that anyway.” This is a conclusion drawn from individual cases to the general. Because those who avoid engaging with online support after a seminar do not do so with either a seminar or another training measure. Training participants who recognize the advantage and effectiveness of small, concise content (exercises, implementation recipes, reflective questions) in follow-up find the time (or are given the time) to utilize this content.
The Relationship Between Daily Rate, Time Investment, and Revenue with Online Support
The daily rate has so far been the determining revenue lever in training. However, this daily rate is directly linked to the time investment and, therefore, is not scalable. Every person has only 24 hours and 365 days in a year available. With online support, not only is the daily rate calculated, but the daily rate plus support. Compared to the simple daily rate, online support has the advantage of being created once and sold multiple times. As a corresponding product, revenue for several days can be generated with one day of presence. The prices per participant should be set based on the effort and extent of the support. For you as a trainer, it is possible to supervise multiple groups in parallel without being onsite, which significantly saves you travel time.
What experiences have you had? Do you share Zach's observations? Write us a comment or send us an email. We would love to exchange ideas with you.
The Conversation with Zach Davis
Michael Witzke: Hello, today I'm here with Zach Davis. First of all, thank you for taking the time to be here today. We want to talk a little about what one can easily do with online support blended learning and also what potentials exist for trainers specifically. And to get to know you perhaps, could you say a few words about yourself? Who are you, actually?
Zach Davis: Thank you for the invitation. After studying business administration and a few years in human resources consulting, I founded a training institute. This means I became self-employed. Back then I called it an institute, and now it has grown a bit, specializing in personal effectiveness, productivity improvement, and workload relief. That was in 2003, and since then I have been giving seminars and lectures on this topic, on the topic complex time management or time intelligence, as I like to call it, and deal with issues like coping with external control, increased demands, and information overload and provide pragmatic solutions.
Michael Witzke: So you have been in the market for a while and have some experience. What do you think has changed in the continuing education market in recent years?
Zach Davis: I believe that primarily two things have changed. One is the demand or the more precise scrutiny by the client, the contractor regarding what this measure actually brings. So a bit of moving away from budget thinking, which I have always criticized a bit. That people spend money when they have the budget. Or if they don't have the budget when times are tougher, less money is available, they avoid making the investment. For me, the crucial question is: Is the investment in continuing education and personnel development worthwhile? If so, should one spend the money? Regardless of whether one feels they have a lot or little budget. And if the investment is not worthwhile, then one should also refrain from it. That’s one, the financial or return side scrutiny. The other is the relevant conditions; I think that down times hurt more now than they used to. The trend clearly goes away from three or two-day seminars toward one-day seminars. And participants, clients would prefer to have the whole thing done in two minutes or in the form of a pill.
Michael Witzke: But you probably used to approach classic two-day seminars. What was your personal motivation to look for more? To find out what else can be done?
Zach Davis: For me, it wasn't so much about needing an offering in the area of E-Learning or Blended Learning because the trend is going there. That is undoubtedly the case, rather 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 training. Assume someone received 40 time-saving tips in a one or two-day training, collaboratively developed or from me or the other participants and wants to implement many of these points. When one asks six months or twelve months later what has actually changed, or even attempts to measure it seriously, the answer is often very disappointing. When participants say, 2-3 points I do differently today, then that’s a good job done. The trainer and the participants together.
Michael Witzke: How can I imagine that? How do you integrate online content into your seminar context?
Zach Davis: Primarily after the presence phase. There are clear studies showing that if the focus in the concept and also time-wise shifts from only presence to focusing on the question: “What happens after the presence?”, the implementation rate and effectiveness rise significantly. And usually, classically, little time is spent in preparation before the presence phase, then there’s the presence phase, and afterwards perhaps a conversation with the supervisor, which often has no great depth of content. But if one instead says the presence phase only makes up about 50%, for example, which can be higher or lower, and 50% of the time, the planning, the energy goes into the afterwards. The question of how one implements it. Then of course the effectiveness and the implementation rate go up.
Michael Witzke: Okay, I understand. Now for you as a trainer, as someone standing before the group, what advantages arise for you from this? For incorporating online measures? Are there tangible benefits?
Zach Davis: Well, on the one hand, the satisfaction of the participants and thus the satisfaction of the clients, which means customer retention is stronger. And if we look at it from my economic perspective, then there are of course scalability options. That is to say, previously, if I received a request to train 100 executives on time management, they would assume we do this in groups of ten. For two days. Then we’re looking at 20 training days and I offer a daily rate of x, maybe starting from 2000 euros or whatever, that makes 40,000 euros in investments. And now we go ahead and do only one day, sometimes even just half a day, and that in groups of twenty because we don’t need to convey the complete knowledge in the presence phase. Then we are talking about much fewer days of presence. Good for the client, less downtime. Good for me because I have less time commitment, and a large part of the implementation logically happens afterwards or the support happens afterwards and is online-supported.
Michael Witzke: So does this mean that if you don’t have such a great personal time expenditure, that of course the prices will automatically drop?
Zach Davis: In terms of the daily rate?
Michael Witzke: Or in terms of the overall package?
Zach Davis: No, my revenue has remained relatively constant in recent years. The difference is that I do not have, as was long the case, 140 to 160 engagements a year. A large part of which was 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 engagements per year. While it sounds like success and perhaps it is, but it is also not necessarily desirable. And now I have significantly fewer than 100 engagements per year with approximately the same revenue. I believe one can calculate that economically this is a step forward with higher customer satisfaction.
Michael Witzke: So basically for me as a trainer, the opportunity lies in that I earn the same with the same amount of personal time investment or I earn the same with less personal time investment.
Zach Davis: Exactly, for me it was more about maintaining the revenue that is there, making it reasonably constant. Plus, minus - but with fewer absences. I have a family; we have four children. It’s nice to see them occasionally. And personally speaking, there’s a big difference between being away for four days or two days. And of course, there are weeks, like this week for example, where I am on the road for four days, from Monday evening to Friday evening, but that has become more of an exception than the rule.
