Is it time for conferences to do away with panels?

Author's note: This is the second in a series of three posts reflecting on BlogWorld 2010, where I was a presenter and an attendee. You can read the first post here.

If there’s one thing you can expect at a conference these days other than awkwardly large nametags and a one-hour wait at Starbucks, it’s this: a legion of panel presentations.

I’ve attended them, sat on them, moderated them, and earnestly enjoyed quite a few. But it was at this year’s BlogWorld that I decided the panel must die so the presentation can live.

I blame Nancy Duarte. Her fantastic new book, Resonante, is dedicated to the simple premise that great presentations create a powerful bond between the speaker and audience — and then use that bond to change how they see the world around them.

“You have to set a course, and that means developing the right content. The destination you define can serve as a guide. Every bit of content you share should propel the audience toward that destination. Keep in mind that a presentation is designed to transport the audience from one location to another.”

That’s a tall order, I know, but it’s one that the very nature of panel presentations makes impossible to achieve.

Think for a moment about TED, the inspiring lecture series whose videos have been passed around by millions of passionate viewers. Think of the TED videos you’ve watched, posted on your blog or sent to your friends and colleagues.

How many were panels?

Here’s the problem: Watching a panel presentation is like eating appetizers for dinner. It does the trick, but not in a truly satisfying way.

Now let me stop briefly to say that I’ve seen some really incredible panels lately, and I'd never want to see them abolished altogether. Many left me feeling educated, inspired or motivated. But they all left me wanting more.

I also understand the financial allure of panels. In a tight conference timeline, it’s a great way to pack in lots of talent and diverse opinions. And panelists are less likely to demand hefty speaker fees than highly skilled presenters. But is the resulting value really worth the efficiency?

Great moderators and outgoing panelists can definitely help make up for the shortcomings of the panel format. At BlogWorld, one of the most well-received presentations was a panel on Digital Crisis Communication, featuring Ford’s Scott Monty alongside fellow PR veterans Dallas Lawrence and Shel Holtz and moderated by the infinitely likable Valeria Maltoni.

However, I believe this panel worked in spite of its format, not because of it. With all the panelists essentially in agreement, any one of them could have presented compellingly on the topic absolutely solo — giving them time to feature case studies and real-world takeaways in depth.

Ditching panels would be a tremendous sacrifice for event planners. It shortens your speaker list (always a major draw for the pricier conferences) and reduces the number of influential luminaries who could be tweeting and blogging about their upcoming presentation at your event.

But I’d argue that panels should at least become the exception instead of the norm. In the long run, I believe it’s a shift that would leave audiences feeling more inspired by the topics being presented — and more inspired to tell their friends when tickets go on sale next year.

David Griner is a social media strategist for Luckie and Company and contributing editor for Adweek’s blog, AdFreak.com. You can reach him by e-mail or on Twitter.

Photo credit: Grant Hutchinson on Flickr

Comments

[Wade Kwon]

It's not panels that need to go away, just poorly prepared ones. If one person bombs on a panel, it can still be saved by the other participants; if a solo presenter bombs, ugh.

Jeremiah Owyang's How to Successfully Moderate a Conference Panel, A Comprehensive Guide is the gold standard, and should be required reading for every moderator and panelist. I re-read it every time I do a panel as panelist or moderator. And I e-mail it a lot these days.

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/01/30/how-to-successfully-moderate-a-conference-panel-a-comprehensive-guide/

[@mattceni]

conference panels are like business meetings. without a need and purpose, agenda and someone to guide the discussion they can be useless. and they have to follow the rule that the more people at the table, the less effective they will be.

@mattceni

[Corey Creed]

I agree in principle. However, the switching between panels and presenters is a nice way of changing up the monotony.

Also, there are far less individuals that can really do a good presentation solo. Having panels enables us to gain the knowledge of those that may not be all that enjoyable to listen to for extended periods of time.

You do make so e good points though.

[David Berkowitz]

I'm in agreement here, as someone who attends a lot of conferences, speaks at a lot of them (also as a moderator, panelist, and solo presenter) and has planned a number of them. Panels are a total crutch. I have been on some great ones, like one last week at Adweek's Social Media Strategies that presented a good mix of opinions and probably added some value. But they should be used more sparingly, and solo presenters should be used more frequently. As an attendee, I'm also far less likely to nod off - or even check my email - during a solo speaker.

Lastly, one point worth adding is that speaking on a panel takes no work - maybe reviewing some questions ahead of time and doing a call with a moderator, but <1 hr. Moderating takes a bit more work if you're any good and care about it because you need to make sure you're providing something of value. Solo presentations, if you're not just rehashing your own stuff, take a ton of work, and strong speakers take those presentations very, very seriously. As far as most panels go though - GIGO comes to mind: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

[David Griner]

Thanks for the great comments guys.

Wade, that's a great resource. Have to admit I hadn't seen it before, but I'll be sure to check it out.

Matt, the quantity-on-panel issue is a good one. I really enjoy two-person panels, even though they seem awkward structurally. The "Blogging through grief and loss" session at Type-A Mom Con recently was one of the best I'd ever seen, largely due to the fact that the two-person structure gave both presenters (@AnissaMayhew and @prairiemama) plenty of time to talk candidly without worrying about the clock. Also, the moderation by @cecilyk was spot-on.

Corey, I do like a mix of panels and presenters, but I would love to see it start becoming a bit more balanced. Panels seem to be the overwhelming option these days.

David B., great points as always, and I'm really glad you chimed in. You're right that one of the major faults of panels is the light amount of prep and effort the panelists are asked to put into it. Supporting information (slides, etc.) are usually left by the wayside too because squeezing them in can feel awkward and forced. So you're left with, essentially, the conference equivalent of an op-ed page.

[Tobin]

Agreed. I was at BWE and was underwhelmed with the content in the panels. It seems if the presenters aren't on the hook to put a good one-person show together, they get lazy. The result feels like a phoned-in presentation, with very few and far apart gems.

More solo shows. Less panels. AND don't forget - Powerpoint also has to die... but that's another story.

[Jason Peck]

I'm not sure I agree. I think panels can do a great job in providing the audience with a variety of views/opinions provided that the moderator is driving the conversation effectively and that people are well-prepared. In many cases, people prepare more for a solo presentation than a panel, so this is why panels suffer and often aren't as valuable.

[Edwin Jansen]

I was also just at BlogWorld and was equally convinced that most panels would be much better as a presentation - provided that the person is actually a good presenter (unfortunately many people at BWE were great bloggers but poor presenters).

And to have keynotes as panels was a total shame - especially when the stage is low and you can't even see them sitting down. Would anyone who was at BWE say that any keynote panel was more compelling than @unmarketing doing his great presentation?

I agree with David that a good presentation is a journey that takes you to a new place - in a way that can only be done live. If we're going to all the trouble to have the live experience then we really should be maximizing it.

[Mary Rarick]

I agree wholeheartedly. Panel speakers too often end up performing for each other ideas of presenting a focused presentation. The result is that the audience feels left out and like their time was wasted.

[Jeff Hurt]

David:

I'd argue that the majority of panels are just monologues on steroids. Instead of one boring presenter, you'll have three, four, five and sometimes even six. It's just another flavor of attendees sitting passively and listening while panelists stand and deliver. Unfortunately, we need delivered from panelists.

Sure a panel allows for multiple speakers. Is that panel for the speakers or the conference participants? What's the goal of the panel? Actually, conference education should be for participant. Not the speakers.

Who learns the most in the panel conference session? Not the audience but the panelists. Because the panelists had to frame their thoughts about the content. The audience is just listening.

Information is not education. Nor is it learning. Having more information from more people thrust at you does not equal more learning and retention. It's actually how to fry the brain so that it forgets most of what's being said.

Most of the time, we have conference education planning backwards. We focus on speakers and panelists instead of focusing on the learner and what's best for them. When we focus on the learner, we stop information dumps and plan sessions differently. We plan for in depth content and audience engagement.

Think about all the panels you saw at BlogWorld. Now what do you remember? Name the top three things that you can apply in your blogging that you received from a panel? Most people can't do it. That's because the panels do not focus on the learner but focus on presenting as much information as possible. Talk is cheap. Engagement with other conference participants, the experience and the content takes discipline.

Now designing that conference engagement experience is the challenge.

[Ike]

David...

Back in my TV days, I was asked to moderate a panel for a local association. It was about two months after the 2001 terror attack, and they wanted to focus on that.

It was an ideal topic for a panel, because there were so many divergent directions from which to draw. We had 7 or 8 people on the dais, representing the FBI, the TSA, and even a rep from a cruise line.

I thought I did a decent job of stitching together the transitions, keeping the conversation flowing, and incorporating everyone's input. It was about a 90 minute session, and it has spoiled me on what panels can be.

That panel worked because it gave us the Google Streetview Immersive Camera perspective. The people who attended got much more than if an individual presenter had tried doing it in a linear way. There was back and forth, progression, and healthy discussion about why different segments of the business and government world were responding in the manner they were.

Most panels today are only drawing on the surface, and aren't thinking multi-dimensionally. Most topics are not conducive to what a panel can bring.

My advice on panels? Mothball them. As you're putting together a conference, when you find a topic that no presenter will touch because it is beyond their individual comfort zone, then maybe you have a use for the tool.

(Just picked up Resonate the other day... can't wait to get into it.)

[David Griner]

Ike, thanks for the comment. And I should note that you did a good job (on short notice) moderating that panel I was on with Brian Cauble and Scott Schablow.

I think one of the biggest takeaways from this discussion is that panels live and die by their moderators. But it's hard to identify or get really jazzed about a "great moderator," so planners tend to pick industry presenters who will be familiar with the topic.

Thanks to everyone else for their thoughtful feedback, as well. Seems it struck a chord, and I hope this didn't come off as a diatribe against panels. There are definitely pros and cons, and we've seen great descriptions of both here.

[wii2010]

I thought I did a decent job of stitching together the transitions, keeping the conversation flowing, and incorporating everyone's input. It was about a 90 minute session, and it has spoiled me on what panels can be. thank