Lets end the tyranny of boring conferences

I have just come back from a most brilliant conference, but in contrast most conferences are boring, how can you make yours the best?

Conferences are boring largely because most conference speakers are boring. Some people think this is ok, or at worst necessary. People argue that some topics are intrinsically boring, like tax for example, or waste management.

But in my view there is no worse condemnation of a speaker than boring.   And there is no such thing as a boring topic, only a boring speaker.

This is not just irritating, its key. If the speaker is boring then we lose interest, sometimes we talk to the person next to us, sometimes we nip to the loo when we don’t need to and more often that not we start fiddling with our little electronic devises. Taken together we are not listening and not learning. What is the point of even the most expert conference speaker if your not listening?

So if being “interesting” is key, in practical terms how can you make sure you only have interesting speakers? The first thing you need to accept is that about 75% of people cannot give good formal conference presentations. Finding someone who can is rare- so when planning your programme the primacy should be on the abilities of your speaker, not his expertise. I would rather hear the second most expert person in the world on a particular topic if they were engaging, if the most expert person was boring. This is simply because I wouldn’t be listening to numero uno.

Change up the format and have more panel sessions and lots of Q&A. Good formal plenary speakers are rare but many more people can hold there own on a panel session, especially if they are more conversational.

In a panel session the key person is the chairman, he should be interventionist, cut people off if necessary and make it flow. Absolutely do not allow each panel member to start by talking for 5-10 minutes. By the end of the fourth panel member 25-50 minutes have gone – as people always go over – and the session is nearly over and almost always dull. Rather the chairman should start with an overview and a question to the first panelist, and you may take the same question to the next panelist, but ideally the chairman should take the answer and develop it into a follow on question for the second speaker. Then follow this pattern until the session is over. If you want an example listen to Melvyn Bragg on Radio Four’s In our Time.

You may wish to make the panel a confrontational affair. This way you can pitch your chair as a journalist asking probing questions and trying to get people out of there comfort zone. This may sound risky but as long as you are open with your participants then they should agree. You can make this fun by pitching the chairman as the “Jeremy Paxman” of the {x} world.”

On Q&A most people don’t want to ask the first question, so make sure you place two questions with friendly audience members.

We all know about “Death by PowerPoint” (and the same principle applies to talking people through presentation packs.) Yet both these things frequently happen. There is only one reason to use PowerPoint, that is to provide an interesting visual backdrop to your presentation. It is not an aide memoire for the speakers and no speaker should read the PowerPoint slide. You must provide crystal clear guidelines to your speakers in how they use PowerPoint - visuals only. If you absolutely must use text, use a massive font and few words – think along the lines of a short quote which makes your point. See any presentation by Steve Jobs to get the point.

Think human, not professional. This is a key point, so what do I mean by this?

Pitch your conference presentation at the level of an educated human being who does not work in your profession – this will stop speakers getting too geeky. This doesn’t mean you cant use technical terms, or make assumptions, but it does mean you will constantly have to justify why your presentation is important, and it will force you to make it engaging and not inverted. Ask yourself would my brother or sister find this interesting, because every topic can be made interesting.   It doesn’t have to be thrilling but most presentations can be made interesting to the average person so long as they are contextualized appropriately. Contrary to what you might think, then if you do this you wont dumb down, rather you will keep the attention of the person who is most technically minded.

Lets talk seating plan. If you want an engaging debate it is absolutely key not to seat your guests theatre style – ie facing the front in rows. It is called theatre style because audiences at theatres generally do not participate – they watch in silence.

If you want interaction then seat your guests boardroom style or in a crescent shape or circle. Even very large audiences can be sat this way – think the UN General Assembly, the French National Assembly or the Scottish Assembly. What these institutions have in common is that they are deliberately designed for debates. What you do need is a bigger room than you need for a theatre style debate. A room which fits 100 people theatre style will fit only 50 boardroom style.

Finally, have more party and less conference? In my experience the most important thing about a conference is the audience. So give your audience as much time to meet each other as possible. Add lots of tea breaks, drinks, dinners and away days. For many people the best business is done at the bar. If you’re an event programmer, don’t see this as a threat, let people socialize and they will love you. I have never been at an event and overheard someone say “there are too many breaks”.

Just because most conferences are boring doesn’t mean the next one has to be!