The Inverse Law of Conference Speaking – On my Om

More prestige, Less Value. Good observation from -> The Inverse Law of Conference Speaking

You start an event with all the right intentions. The high-signal quality makes people want to show up. Then it becomes bigger and bigger, and the original intent is lost, sacrificed to the gods of lucre. With size comes the economic compulsion to put more butts in the seats. To do that, you have to find speakers who are famous, have name recognition, and—more recently—social media influence.

At some point, my own events became victims of their own success, and I found myself constantly struggling to balance speakers with ‘intellectual weight’ against ‘speakers in the bright lights.’

And that means these speakers are always going to be promoting their own spiel. They’re not going to be imparting any real wisdom or knowledge. They will market themselves as best as possible.

I can’t blame the speakers—the problem is more systemic. Small events don’t make enough money to be worth the effort. Larger events make a lot of money but need all the marketing sizzle. Things have gotten uglier since advertising revenues started to evaporate, and companies have added “conferences” as a new line of business. Whether it’s The Atlantic, The New York Times, or The New Yorker, they’re all peddling the same speakers with the same conventional conversations. They’re doing it because conferences are now a “revenue stream.”

This has been true for a while in my (very) limited experience. It’s unfortunate, since I still think in-person is where it’s at.

The upside is that in person is still there (and always will be) – it just takes a bit more work than usual to figure out (or host)!