Communique Conferencing vs. Crowdcast

The platform is well suited for delivering a unique and elevated experience for guests. Also, events with 200+ attendees. I would not recommend using Communique for simple and very small events. There are dozens of cheap options for these.

Crowdcast does a great job with live webinars and is one of the top ones available. They have continually improved the product and are coming out with a version two now with a cleaner, easier to use interface with some really cool features. The platform works well and most importantly the live webinars come in clearly and almost never fail. In the past year, things have worked very smoothly which is really a relief. As anyone who does lots of live videos knows, it's crucial to have a smooth, easy-to-use piece of tech that doesn't fail like Crowdcast. Chat comes in a lot better and the features are cooler than Zoom Webinars.

Incentivized

• Delivering a unique and elevated experience by using a platform with a unique look and feel.
• The platform capsulizes everything and makes information easily accessible.
• It's the team support that keeps us coming back. We have a dream team which is why our events go off so well without a hitch.

• Create live webinars
• Record webinars
• Respond to customers in chat and present offers and polls

Incentivized

• Nice to add personal agenda, which is on the roadmap this year

• Chat replay does not repeat in realtime like Facebooks live video replays
• New registrants aren't automatically added to email platform, have to download list.

Incentivized

Usability is critical with virtual events both for our team to set up and administer as well as for our attendees. Communique Conferencing is easy for our team to administer. We survey our attendees during and after virtual events. The feedback regarding usability is very positive.

The Communique project team is

• Knowledgeable
• Responsive
• Willing to go above and beyond to make our events successful

We found out the hard way that there's a lot of smoke and mirrors in the virtual event space. We had no idea the level of proper vetting we should have done before hosting a client event with our reputation on the line.

• Support: The PM was located in our time zone and way more responsive.
• Platform: It's hard to assess platforms on one 60-minute demo. When it came down to hosting a virtual event there were a lot of limitations with the other platforms (e.g., no ability for booth reps to proactively chat with visitors, no ability to search for other attendees, no ability to send broadcast messages to communicate to attendees during live days, etc.). Communique Conferencing had all of these and was easy for attendees to use.
• Data security: We are a financial firm, so data security is huge. We did not realize the lack of basic attendee data security with some of the other platforms until our IT team performed and assessment. Communique Conferencing was one of the only platforms that passed.

WebinarJam got really bad the last couple of years we used it (2 years ago). Crowdcast support has been better and doesn't fail like WebinarJam. Facebook had a bunch of issues as well and isn't the ideal solution in my opinion. Zoom Webinars provide a great video feed, but the chat options and overall functionality are limited.

Incentivized

• Higher attendance - Extend the geographic reach of our events
• Wow factor - Position our firm as leading edge
• Thought leadership - The webinar component helps deliver engaging presentations
• Analytics - Everything is tracked for amazing metrics

• Made our company more personal
• Allows for better interaction with customers
• Increased retention

Incentivized