CATEGORIES
- WEB STARTUPS
- CONFERENCES
- WEB JOBS
- MICROSOFT
- INTERVIEWS
- VIDEO
- AMAZON
- ALL TOPICS
CONTRIBUTORS
I’ve Had Enough of “Live” at Conferences
There are times when "going live" is great. When there’s an earthquake or other catastrophy, it’s great. When you want to show gramma how your baby crawls on the floor while speaking with her on the phone, great. Other times, it’s not needed and can become more of an annoyance than anything.
Yesterday I sat in on a panel discussion at the Personal Democracy Conference in NYC. The panel was moderated by Esther Dyson and included the CEOs from CoverItLive, Qik, Mogulus and also Robert Scoble. Side note, if anyone would like me to post the full session video, I can. I didn’t find the session to be as strong as the talk Robert gave at MediaBistro last month.
Here’s a photo from the event. I’ve left out Esther who really didn’t say much for the entire panel except something at the end about oil prices and how Barack is going to fix the world. From the left: the CoverItLive CEO had no electronics on the stage and seemed to be the most involved in the discussion. Next to him is the Mogulus CEO who had a Macbook with a webcam apparently live and he moved the laptop all around during the panel. Next to him is the Qik CEO who had out his Nokia N95 and for most of the panel held up this camera so he could allow all of the Qik folks access to watch the panel. Last we have Robert Scoble who also had a Nokia N95 hooked up to Qik and his massive battery pack. In addition he had a Macbook Pro attached to the projector.
Every 2-3 seconds Robert was clicking on something and I found it to be very distracting. Speaking with a few other attendees, they said the same thing. Is it really necessary to watch Twitter, FriendFeed, Summize, Qik, Twittervision over and over every few seconds? If attendees want to monitor the activities, they can do it on their own devices.
This panel is only one example of this type of behavior. I’ve been seeing more and more of this and it’s disturbing. There’s absolutely no reason this panel had to be broadcast live. In fact, most conferences don’t need to be broadcast live. The sessions should absolutely be recorded but don’t need to be broadcast live.
In yesterday’s case, moderator Esther Dyson mentioned that attendees could text their questions in through Twitter. Great idea, but poor execution. Instead of having one of the panelists (scoble) monitoring for questions, let him actually be part of the panel and find an intern to monitor the backchannel for questions. It just takes away from the overall panel.
Another question regarding live conference broadcasting is: when will the conference organizers put a stop to the live broadcasts? If I can sit in my office and watch the conference, why spend the $2,000 to attend? Will DEMO and Techcrunch50 allow live broadcasting? What I can see is a PPV option where the conference provides the live streaming and charges a fee for it.
When I spend thousands of dollars and my time to attend a conference, I am really not interested in watching the Qik CEO broadcast the session live to everyone without paying attention to what’s going on in the moment. I also really don’t give a rats ass what people outside the conference think of what’s going on inside the room. I want to have the speaker’s full attention. I didn’t have that today – not by a longshot. And again, I am using this session as an example but the issue is much more widespread.
Let’s get back to why we go to conferences… the networking and the education. If you can’t be there for some reason, watch the sessions later on. Just because it’s cutsie and hip to go live all the time, doesn’t mean we need to.
When podcasting was in its infancy, a much heralded tenet for the format was the lack of appointment-based viewing, because it was on-demand media. There’s no such thing as time-shifted re: podcasting, because the medium isn’t live. We NEED time-shifting for all the live stuff.
Live isn’t bad, however. Good for those present to participate (if they can schedule it), and good (if edited) for those to access later (post-conversation).
Does this mean the Cluetrain is applicable to real-time? Well, no, but if you DO make the appointment, you can control/influence/participate in the conversation right then and there.
I don’t have the bandwidth to be anyone’s groupie. I refuse to say ‘how high’ when you say ‘jump! (come chat now!)’ ;)
I agree with you. Just because a technology is available doesn’t mean you have to use it. Most of the people doing these “live” streams are generating stuff that’s very amateurish and not thought through very well. I’ll come back later for a thoughtful report and will look at the video if I’m really interested. (Related to this is a blog post I wrote a couple of weeks ago titled “One Thing I Don’t Like About Twitter” http://www.ddmcd.com/one_thing.html.)
Nice post Allen, your photo of the panel says it all. Scoble looks like he’s in his own world. I saw that the conference session was about “Building and Using the World LIVE Web.” Did the panel share their observations on how live broadcasting affects the political process with any substance? You said the CoverItLive CEO had no electronics on the stage and was the most engaged. Most likely because he had no distractions.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, I agree with you on all counts. I think the “live” has a place if it’s a demo session but can be a big distraction during a discussion.
When every technologist are scratching each other’s back, attendee’s/user’s experience is one of the last things on their mind. Since most of them are heavily promoting these tools, how can they not be using it to “prove” that it’s “useful”?
Turn it the other way round, if you were sitting through a talk and you’re text-ing on your mobile frequently (because of whatever family issues that sprung up), you’ll be probably be frowned upon as rude.
Perhaps this is what they meant by “changing the way we communicate”. Fine example of what the “change” is all about.
Yeah, I saw some of this even at SXSW. Panelists who are engaged in something on their laptops. It’s like they can’t see the hundred people in front of them. Doh!
For most panels, I’d agree with you Allen, but this one was a panel about the “Live Web” and I thought it was appropriate to demonstrate how these tools work and how I use them. Many people came up to me afterward and said they didn’t realize that you can search things on Summize and didn’t know you can do live streaming video off of cell phones. This is always the problem with panels and conference sessions: the audiences aren’t the same.
Personally I hate panel discussions, I don’t think they deliver as much value as a well-thought-out speech. I probably will turn down any more of those.
Interesting post, Allen. You’re just as passionate about this as the people are who are telling us that they appreciate being able to watch these things live. It just depends upon the person and how relevant and worthwhile they find the content. For example, I’m not a big Indiana Jones fan, so the Qiks that Variety did live from Cannes with the cast were not interesting to me apart from as a neat work-related thing.
What our co-founder (not CEO) Bhaskar was doing was allowing the audience – both inside and outside of the room – to ask questions and give feedback on the panel via Qik’s live chat feature. The remarks appear on the cell phone’s screen while the event is being recorded. This integration of a back-channel to a panel is nothing new, as we’ve been doing this kind of stuff at events with IRC for years, but this particular method really is. I understand why it would grate for some people. I’ve personally never been a fan of the projected IRC back-channel behind the speaker(s), as I think it’s distracting and unfair to the people on the dais.
As someone said above, the reason people pay to attend conferences is by and large because of the opportunity to meet interesting people. I don’t think live streaming is going to kill the conference business model, that’s for sure. Indeed, Micah and Andrew (who own PDF) were using Qik themselves throughout the conference, aggregating Qik videos from attendees on the event blog, and very excited about the opportunity to extend the audience beyond those who had several hundred dollars for a ticket, flights, and hotel to be there in person. Your mileage may vary, but I don’t think it’s a big mystery why the live element is so popular and exciting to so many people.
Oh, and that Twitter feature whereby a message is sent saying that the person is streaming live? Totally optional, controlled by the individual user, and not “some Qik robot on continuous tweet” as Jim Hirschfield guessed above. Just as it’s up to you whether or not to watch a person’s live streams, it’s up to you whether or not to follow someone who tweets their live status so they can invite viewers into an event. I don’t know a better way to configure this than by giving everyone a choice in the matter.
If everyone didn’t have their heads so far up their asses they would note that Web2.0 has become a parody of itself.
Allen, you answered your own question at the end.
“If I can sit in my office and watch the conference, why spend the $2,000 to attend?”
and then
“Let’s get back to why we go to conferences… the networking and the education.”
I’m a conference organizer myself, so I worry about this kind of stuff. I honestly think the majority of conference attendees pay the fee probably 80% for the networking and 20% for the content. Which is fine, if you can make sure the networking is top-notch.
Ironically, just saw this post from a Tweet, here:
https://twitter.com/kittell/statuses/842607441
Conference/meeting organizers need to put a stop to this type of behavior. If speakers are getting paid, in cash or in-kind or whatever, then they should be doing their JOB and focus on the task at hand.
And to echo Rick Dobbs’s comment above, if you paying to be at the conference, then get the most value of your dollar and pay attention to what is being said.
Posting online LIVE, unless that is your job, is only feeding a narcissic need for attention among people who didn’t have or take the time to participate in the discussion in person. Focus your attention on those who really care or are equipped to care by being present in the same room. If you must post something, then at least be discreet about it!
Remember how we used to drift off in class and the teacher went… “You! What did I just said?” Haha!
These guys do it because they *think* they’re great at multi-tasking, but actually are terrible at it. How many times have I been at a panel discussion and someone who was “multi-tasking” just repeats what someone had *just said?* Enough times that I will leave a panel right away if I see someone doing something else and go to a panel where the people are interested in the discussion.
Honestly, if you can’t pay attention to your own panel, how interested is anyone else going to be?
This goes for people who go to a panel as an attendee then IM/Twitter the whole time. Unless you’re liveblogging Steve Jobs, then put it down and participate.
ha ha
Very interesting post by Allen Stern.
I agree him and with Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins that the “Twitting (etc.) from the stage” is most distracting, and should not be encouraged.
As far as the “passive” streaming of the event, this should not necessarily be distracting – unless roaming the room with a laptop! – but if this was a “paying” event, I understand the wish to keep such streaming under control as well.
Actually, I draw a distinction. Checking up on Twitter, Friendfeed or any other text service is one thing – very distracting.
Turning on a camera and streaming an event is another.
I don’t see anything wrong with videoing the event, either from the audience or the panel, particularly since no conference i’ve been to has understood the market or value to the general wilds of the internet of setting up a virtual conference experience.
Our liveblogged conference keynotes and panels are some of the most popular content we’ve had on the site.
yeah that clicking every 2-3 seconds would be a pain for me also.
Great post!!!
Well said. When I’m speaking or participating on a panel, there is no way I can be live-blogging, tweeting, streaming, whatever. The attendees get my full attention. (A different story when I’m attending a conference; I’m often sending messages.)
I watched some of Scoble’s video feed on QIK. Between poor sound quality and the video showing the Mogulus dude scowling and shifting around in omst of the frame, and then a quick sweep to the show a video of Hillary Clinton on [presumably] Scoble’s laptop, it was pretty difficult to discern value.
*Just because you can [stream live] doesn’t mean you should*
I’m streaming this blog post live right now! Come join me!
;-)
haha good one!
Amen. Thank you Allen for speaking up on this. Then there’s my twitter feed that gets clogged up with the same guy tweeting the same message over and over again, probably some Qik robot on continuous tweet: “I’m streaming live right now…yada yada yada”.