I have, in the past, argued that the only justifiable format for conference speakers is the TED-style talk.
I’m officially reforming that view. The reality is that many potential (great) speakers are going to shy away from that. The stakes are high, as are the requirements for preparation. And it is, honestly, intimidating.
However, I still find panels at conferences infuriating nearly all of the time. They are, by design, superficial, and time after time I feel like I miss the chance to really learn from each of the amazing people on the stage.
The much better option is staring us right in the face: podcasts.
Most podcasts have guests, and nearly all of these have exactly one guest. The format is well-established: a great interviewer has prepared well to interview that guest, and she spends, on average, 30 to 90 minutes having an engaging conversation with that person.
We know that this works because it’s been tested in millions of podcasts, and because all the most famous guest-oriented podcasts have just one person on at a time.
If you’re not convinced, imagine this:
In a stroke of innovation, your favorite podcast is switching things up! They’ve invited not one but three amazing guests onto the show. And they’ve capped the conversation at 30 minutes. So, after introductions and a word from our sponsors, each guest has, if everything goes well, about 9 minutes to share their story. AND (bonus!) it’s up to the guests and the interviewer to try to highlight the unique insights and stories of each of the three guests and to weave together what they are saying into a coherent whole.
I’m pretty sure you’re not tuning in to that, and that you’d think “darn, couldn’t we have gone deeper with just one of them?” Couldn’t we have really dug into where that one amazing guest is coming from; to learn their perspective on an important topic; to hear their take on everything from current events to how they manage to stay inspired through decades of tough work and ups and downs? What are their quirks, what makes them tick, what do they uniquely have to share with us today?
Yes, that would be much better, on a podcast and on the stage of your next conference.
There are two main reasons this doesn’t happen.
First, because it’s easier to do things the same way. No one will get fired for lining up a bunch of 3-people-plus-a-moderator panels, and trying as best they can to make them good.
Second, and more problematic, because the incentives for conference organizers are all wrong. Their first job is to get people TO the conference, and they do that by securing lots of brand-name speakers. Lots of smiling faces on your conference website / emails sell tickets. And, the experience at the conference is better for everyone if people at the top of the food chain are roaming the halls.
So, here’s how you split the difference.
- The core of your conference is 1-on-1, podcast-type fireside chats.
- Some of these are live, many more are pre-recorded. Market them all as part of your conference.
- Open up the stage for classical keynote presentations: 18-minute TED talk style, or similar.
- And, finally, create slots for 3-minute “what I’m passionate about” talks. Three minutes to say one thing you really care about, professional or otherwise. Here are eight of them that are memorable, and one more dollop of genius called If I Controlled the Internet by Rives.
- Open these 3-minute slots up to your would-have-invited panelists and to your audience, asking for 60-second video auditions that are accepted up to 24 hours before stage time. Music is allowed.
Have at it. And, please, write me directly if anyone complains how much they missed the panels.
Thanks Sasha! I agree that many panels do not serve their purpose well, but I still think they do in the ideal serve a purpose that is distinct from a Ted talk or singular podcast interview. I agree the latter are usually more in depth but they are also very one way and can be really boring. Done well, a panel can allow a prepared and thoughtful moderator and the group to:
– compare and contrast multiple perspectives on one topic, giving the audience a quick and lively intro to a new topic or an update on key current issues in a known topic from multiple perspectives
– coach the panelists ( usually ahead of time) so that their comments are sharpened and easier for an audience to consume ( this is because often panelists have some thoughts that are unique and interesting and others that are not but they may not know which is which. A good moderator does, and prepares ahead to help lead them to share the most interesting thoughts. )
-ask provocative questions that force panelists out of their pre-approved talking points and to share more about what they really see and think on the tough spots on the topic,
-knows the audience well enough to shape the contour of the conversation, e.g. starting with key definitions and moving on to advanced topics after everyone is grounded
-balance the levels of communication across the group, so that even someone who is not a great snappy communicator and would really not do well in a singular format can still voice their views in smaller chunks
– hold the panel space as not just a one way communication, but one that can flexibly adjust to the needs of both the panelists and the audience through q and a and other interactive elements, and
– hold space for diversity and the emotional needs of the panelists, taking into account underlying power dynamics and naming them and reshaping them as needed. The one interviewer/one guest format often puts the interviewer in the sole power seat.
I hesitate to add this, but I think of Ted talks and most podcasts as one way, “report”-style communication, very male style in the Deborah Tannen sense, in general. I have something to convey and you will listen until I’m done. The podcast interviewer can shape that a little and a great podcast interviewer like Krista Tippett can turn that around, but most don’t. Panels can and should be more free-flowing. They are more interactive and adjustable and the power to speak can be, if done well, more equitably shared. They are more “rapport” based, again using Deborah Tannen language.
Anyway, that’s what I see as ideally possible. It’s also just as true that many if not most panel moderators are not selected for nor experienced in managing these complex dynamics. If anything, I think we need to recognize the skills involved in managing a great panel, not throw the panel format baby out with the bath water. And there may well be times the podcast style should be used more.
I welcome your reactions!
Hi Cathy – wow there’s so much here thank you for sharing it. I don’t know Deborah’s work so I don’t have a ton of context.
What I would say more broadly is that, in my experience, what you describe is quite rarely achieved. Perhaps that is a function of the skill of the moderator, the structure / length of most panels, etc. In addition I feel that it is rare that a session organizer will know the panelists well enough to even be able to conceive of a coherent narrative (despite trying hard – and I’ve been responsible for organizing a bunch of panels and have fallen short here time and again).
Put another way, most of the time I don’t experience panels as “one conversation”. It feels like 3-4 panelists each being shoehorned into getting their talking points across, and that being inevitably superficial. Specifically, I recall this year going to a conference where each panelist was more impressive than the last one, yet you had 3 on a panel and each panel lasted 15 minutes. A movie director who I’m a huge fan of – who had flown halfway around the world for that panel – was given maybe 4 minutes to share her perspective. It was infuriating.
So–at a minimum I would propose that the “default” nature of panels is really problematic. It represents 90% of conference time and we experiment so little with other formats.
And, per your Krista Tippet comment – think of the outsized value 2-3 skillful interviewers could bring to a conference and how transformative that would be.
Thanks Sasha. All great points and all too true. Our attention spans are getting shorter and our panels are getting more crowded and too truncated. It’s almost like watching a live feed, isn’t it? And we should expect more of the potential of in-person events than that they turn into the equivalent of scrolling! I love your last suggestion. I’ve seen some rare events where the moderators are selected for those skills and it makes a huge difference! Generally I think we need more diverse formats that prioritize both deeper thought AND better interaction!