A Lesson on Creating Dramatic Tension at Your Events
Here’s a question for anyone who’s ever set a conference agenda. Would you put your keynote speaker in a tight spot by inserting a last-minute surprise speaker you knew would rattle them to the core?
It’s a question I asked myself this week after watching Kara Swisher, who is a masterful interviewer with a flair for dramatic tension, at the Code Conference. The story is a bit convoluted but juicy and instructive. Linda Yaccarino, now CEO of X (formerly Twitter), had, for months, been featured as one of the top-billed speakers at the Code Conference, a tech conference created by Swisher. Code has the reputation for bringing the top brass of technology companies to the stage and grilling (often skewering) them.?
Ostensibly (I believe this part) at the 11th hour, the Code Conference inserted Yoel Roth, former head of Trust and Safety, at what was then Twitter, to appear on stage just before Yaccarino’s appearance. Roth spoke eloquently about his reasons for leaving Twitter, including his discomfort with many of Musk’s decisions. Roth came across as earnest, informed, and tortured by Musk’s leadership. He received a standing ovation.
领英推荐
Yaccarino could have backed out when she found out that Roth would be a late addition to the program, but of course, that would not have looked good. Instead, she tried to put on her best gameface in an interview with CNBC’s Julia Boorstin. Despite Boorstin’s carefully worded questions, Yaccarino looked horribly defensive and couldn’t sufficiently answer simple questions about X’s policies, current traffic, or ad revenues. She defensively distanced herself from the old Twitter but couldn’t articulate much about the new X. Multiple news reports portrayed her interview as tense and rattled, a dumpster fire and plain ‘ole bizarre. The X-verse exploded with second-day quarterbacks, many agreeing that Yaccario had been ambushed by the last-minute Roth addition, and just as many siding with Swisher who said, Yaccario should have been able to strut her CEO-ness and not appear unsure and uninformed.?
Gossip aside, the question is: does a conference planner owe it to their main speaker to give them a heads up about potential conflicts, or is all this fair in the name of drama-packed events? And equally important, should conference planners work to inject a bit more disagreement into their lineups? Diverse voices and different opinions add an excitement that many conferences lack. Finally, if you’re asked to speak, better know the context, the other players in the lineup, and come prepared. Can’t get enough of the juicy details? Listen to Swisher break down the Twitter/X showdown.?
CEO & Principal @ Storytech | Creating Memorable Content Experiences
1 年I think you guys are all hitting on the important note, audience experience. We all tend to learn more, take in more, when the experience is educational and stimulating, feels safe and comfortable, delivers on the needs of the attendee. I like show biz and drama but if a speaker is thrown off on stage, I think that makes the audience feel cringy. :)
Such smart comments. Thanks.
Creating Event and Content Strategy With Impact | Former CES Exec | Industry Thought Leader
1 年This is an important question. I think having differing perspectives is very valuable on a conference stage and there needs to be more healthy, productive discussions. Surprising a headliner, however, is likely to make future speakers hesitant to say yes and tarnish your brand as well as theirs. I believe in being transparent with all parties so everyone can make an informed decision.
Creator Economy Sherpa | Award Winning Curator, Moderator & Speaker | "Inside the Creator Economy" Newsletter | Board of Director | Geek
1 年You raise a great question. But the audience is the most important person in that room. Was it the right thing for attendees? It certainly made headlines but did it add value for the ticket buyers? I would use that as my principle to answer the question.
VP & Principal Analyst, Digital Business & Strategy, Forrester Research
1 年I think a conference organizer owes it to the AUDIENCE to not waste time on sessions that add no value, and instead only serve to 1) create a buzz around the conference, 2) make other leaders of industry hesitant to participate in conferences, and 3) make the interviewer look like a "hard-hitting" journalist guided by some imaginary noble purpose. Here's a better question: Multiply all the people in the room (who took time away from work, family and their lives to attend that session) by the length of the session. How much time in aggregate was wasted and worthless to everyone who came to actually learn something? I have no love for "X", and I don't know Linda Yaccarino, but conference organizers who do this on purpose are shortsighted - selfishly put the audience needs last, tearing down another human being and acting like that's a good thing, and in the long run, eroding the willingness for others - attendees and speakers - to participate in conferences. <- Sorry, but you did ask for my thoughts. :)