Perfect Porridge: SXSW Interactive Day 2: Audience Revolt at the Metrics Panel
mediaeater
· 1 year ago
Wish I hit that soc-net metrics panel I am moderating one at media summit on wed, and just launched a free and open partial solution to try and gleam some intel from all the information at trendrr.com - would love more input on whats wanted from anyone who is interested.
Ed Kohler
· 1 year ago
Interesting turn of events. Why not just walk out if things turn out to be crappy? I imagine some people were still getting some value out of the presentation (whether it was what they were expecting or not going in), so why interrupt things?
Robert Collins
· 1 year ago
Alas, sxsw seems to have the latest nexus of the grand social media experiment - where the 'pundits and experts' still don't seem to understand the new dynamics when 2.0 influencers gather in real-world events.
The number one rule in any forum is know your audience - and in the land of immediacy with live twittering - moderators need to take into account the reaction of their audience - real and virtual. Sometimes, going off the script can be the most genuine and respectful thing you can do - when your audience wants your talk to take a different direction.
As is too often the case - too many people are talking and not truly listening.
If you can see - look. If you can look - observe. If you can observe - react.
Heath Row
· 1 year ago
I was at this panel, and while I wasn't plugged into the back channel -- I was rocking the Moleskine -- I wondered whether that cough outbreak was orchestrated. I, too, wish they'd talked more about measurement and metrics.
Corvida
· 1 year ago
Childish antics, but at least it got the point across and is definitely funny.
Prentiss Riddle
· 1 year ago
Sounds like the panelists were doing the audience a disservice and deserved what they got, but I hope there emerge better protocols for audience feedback than earpieces or mass confrontations.
Most of the panelists at SXSW are experts (or simply enthusiasts) on their topics and not professional newscasters or TV emcees. This is as it should be. It's cognitively a great deal to ask of amateur speakers that they pay attention to their planned talk, their co-panelists, the people who formally ask questions at the microphone, and (if we're lucky) the visible and audible reactions of the audience. To add an earpiece to the mix or ask speakers to monitor a chat channel as they talk would make most speakers do worse, not better.
A traditional way to handle audience response is to have audience members write questions on cards and have a moderator select among them. Usually this is used to stifle the audience (i.e., so they won't ask tough questions) but in digital form it can be used to manage volume rather than content. I've heard of this method being adapted in both hybrid Second-Life/real-life conferences and in radio talk shows so there's a panel participant designated to report questions and comments that emerge from audience chatter.
Maybe it would be worth some formal experiments in this vein at next year's SXSW?
emily
· 1 year ago
In addition to this panel and the infamous Zuckerberg interview, there was a surprising amount of audience pushback at this year's SXSW, including respectful but strong disagreement in the "Are Logos Irrelevant?" panel, and a giant sucking whoosh of disappointment in the "Design Eye" panel. The larger message SXSW organizers need to take away from this? Your audience is made up of very smart people. Time to try harder.
Porridge
· 1 year ago
There was significant audience tension and contempt in the "How Piracy Will Save the Music Industry" panel yesterday, with 10 questioners in a row ripping into the panelist from Media Defender. The Meebo chat room was empty and only @davedelaney and I were tweeting from the room. Audience members were straight up talking to each other all across the room and the last questioner brought his laptop up to the mic to play an audio file that said "Shut the F*ck Up." I'm working on a post about it.
Michael E. Rubin
· 1 year ago
Emily,
I totally (but respectfully) disagree. The message is not "Time to try harder." The message is "How do we provide appropriate avenues for pushback?"
Orhcestrated coughs and heckling is rude. Plain and simple. I wrote a post about this at MarketingProfs this morning. It was inspired in part by this post. I'd be honored if you'd read it, but here's the gist of it: When did being rude become cute? http://tinyurl.com/3bgsef
I make my living in part by putting on these kind of events. And yep, that includes panels on metrics and ROI. The dirty little secret? THEY ARE BORING. Metrics and ROI is an enormously boring topic. The experts are not professional speakers -- they are largely numbers geeks who are some of the most brilliant people you'll be privileged to meet. To stand there and heckle because the panel doesn't meet your expectations is insulting. Where were the conference reps from the SXSW organization? They -- or the moderator -- should have stepped in immediately and asked people to be a bit more respectful ... or walk out.
My point was simply that this recurring theme of audience dissatisfaction should not be ignored. I never meant to condone behavior such as coughing in unison -- that is rude and silly. I agree that pushback must be civil, and mostly it was.
The "Are Logos Irrelevant?" panel, for example, was a model of appropriate pushback: audience members lined up at the mike and presented *brief* and *logical* evidence that the panelists had failed to make the case for their provocative premise. In the "Design Eye" panel, there was very little audible pushback (in fact one Q&A participant who tried to stir things up was promptly hushed by the rest of the room) -- but the sudden disappointment during the "reveal" was like a blanket descending on the room, and it threw off the presenters who were expecting whoops of applause. Herasimchuk's response was not to a belligerent audience member but to someone who had waited in line to ask the perfectly reasonable question of how their navigation-challenged sample pages could be integrated into the larger site.
Yes, conference speakers can be boring. There were some of those at SXSW, too, and people walked out on them quietly. But when speakers are ill-prepared, arrogant, or deceptive, the question is no longer how to provide avenues for feedback, but how to make sure that people do not become angry at the perceived theft of their time and money.
nai
· 1 year ago
Hi there!
Found your site through googling for social media metrics. Was wondering about the notes on 'teen marketing'. Will you guys be doing a write up on that soon? Would be great if you're sharing the knowledge.
Cheers
Nai
Porridge
· 1 year ago
By the time I got back to my notes most folks had already done a pretty great job of summing up the panel.
Health_Campus
· 3 months ago
wow i really found this to be interesting. thanks for sharing
Sxsw seems to have the latest nexus of the grand social media experiment - where the 'pundits and experts' still don't seem to understand the new dynamics when 2.0 influencers gather in real-world events.
Virtual Kids Games
· 3 months ago
It's important to know your audience when planning a presentation. I guess not enough thought went into this one.
All Comments
and just launched a free and open partial
solution to try and gleam some intel from
all the information at trendrr.com - would love more input on whats wanted from anyone who is interested.
The number one rule in any forum is know your audience - and in the land of immediacy with live twittering - moderators need to take into account the reaction of their audience - real and virtual. Sometimes, going off the script can be the most genuine and respectful thing you can do - when your audience wants your talk to take a different direction.
As is too often the case - too many people are talking and not truly listening.
If you can see - look.
If you can look - observe.
If you can observe - react.
Most of the panelists at SXSW are experts (or simply enthusiasts) on their topics and not professional newscasters or TV emcees. This is as it should be. It's cognitively a great deal to ask of amateur speakers that they pay attention to their planned talk, their co-panelists, the people who formally ask questions at the microphone, and (if we're lucky) the visible and audible reactions of the audience. To add an earpiece to the mix or ask speakers to monitor a chat channel as they talk would make most speakers do worse, not better.
A traditional way to handle audience response is to have audience members write questions on cards and have a moderator select among them. Usually this is used to stifle the audience (i.e., so they won't ask tough questions) but in digital form it can be used to manage volume rather than content. I've heard of this method being adapted in both hybrid Second-Life/real-life conferences and in radio talk shows so there's a panel participant designated to report questions and comments that emerge from audience chatter.
Maybe it would be worth some formal experiments in this vein at next year's SXSW?
I totally (but respectfully) disagree. The message is not "Time to try harder." The message is "How do we provide appropriate avenues for pushback?"
Orhcestrated coughs and heckling is rude. Plain and simple. I wrote a post about this at MarketingProfs this morning. It was inspired in part by this post. I'd be honored if you'd read it, but here's the gist of it: When did being rude become cute? http://tinyurl.com/3bgsef
I make my living in part by putting on these kind of events. And yep, that includes panels on metrics and ROI. The dirty little secret? THEY ARE BORING. Metrics and ROI is an enormously boring topic. The experts are not professional speakers -- they are largely numbers geeks who are some of the most brilliant people you'll be privileged to meet. To stand there and heckle because the panel doesn't meet your expectations is insulting. Where were the conference reps from the SXSW organization? They -- or the moderator -- should have stepped in immediately and asked people to be a bit more respectful ... or walk out.
It's really that simple.
Cheers,
Michael
_______
Michael E. Rubin -- GasPedal/Blog Council
Call me: 312-932-9000
Email me: michael@gaspedal.com
Tweet me: http://twitter.com/merubin
See a platypus: http://tinyurl.com/2mtycl
My point was simply that this recurring theme of audience dissatisfaction should not be ignored. I never meant to condone behavior such as coughing in unison -- that is rude and silly. I agree that pushback must be civil, and mostly it was.
The "Are Logos Irrelevant?" panel, for example, was a model of appropriate pushback: audience members lined up at the mike and presented *brief* and *logical* evidence that the panelists had failed to make the case for their provocative premise. In the "Design Eye" panel, there was very little audible pushback (in fact one Q&A participant who tried to stir things up was promptly hushed by the rest of the room) -- but the sudden disappointment during the "reveal" was like a blanket descending on the room, and it threw off the presenters who were expecting whoops of applause. Herasimchuk's response was not to a belligerent audience member but to someone who had waited in line to ask the perfectly reasonable question of how their navigation-challenged sample pages could be integrated into the larger site.
Yes, conference speakers can be boring. There were some of those at SXSW, too, and people walked out on them quietly. But when speakers are ill-prepared, arrogant, or deceptive, the question is no longer how to provide avenues for feedback, but how to make sure that people do not become angry at the perceived theft of their time and money.
Found your site through googling for social media metrics. Was wondering about the notes on 'teen marketing'. Will you guys be doing a write up on that soon? Would be great if you're sharing the knowledge.
Cheers
Nai
Cheers
good-jobs.org , jewelryreview.net