CROWDCTRL

When I set out to visit Austin, Texas, for this year’s SXSW Interactive, I was looking forward to some real meat – both in the technical presentations at SXSW and from Austin’s barbeque pits.

The event website bills itself thusly: “Attracting digital creatives as well as visionary technology entrepreneurs, the SXSW Interactive Festival enables you to connect, discover and inspire your link to the cutting edge.” It also says “Attendees benefit from hands-on, how-to training … in an atmosphere that charges creativity and out-of-the-box thinking.”

While I came away from SXSW stuffed with Austin’s finest ribs, links and brisket, I still felt mentally hungry and wondered what happened to the other half of the SXSW meal. The event certainly attracts “visionary technology entrepreneurs,” but it failed to live up to its promise. I mean, where was the beef?

The beef ribs at Austin’s Iron Works left us greasier and happier than much of the vegan-type fare at the conference.

After talking to a handful of people and scratching my head over what should have been a totally enlightening event, I think I’ve figured out what was wrong with the festival.

It has everything to do with format.

The panel format is the kind of structured discussion that can be incredibly informative, provocative and quite entertaining. Television programs like Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and The View are two popular and successful examples of this. Furthermore, the longevity of programs like the Mclaughlin Group tell us this format is great for good, in-depth discussion of important topics. So if panels can be executed well, why did those at SXSW not inspire my “link to the cutting edge?”

It’s because the panel format in a venue such as SXSW trends towards mediocrity.

There are four basic reasons for this.

1. A panel needs at least one highly skilled moderator. The moderator is akin to a late night talk show host. Those who succeed in late night are experts at knowing how to conduct a proper interview. They are highly skilled at asking the right questions and coaxing reticent guests out of their comfort zones. These hosts know that once a guest is outside their comfort zone, “good television happens.” They also need to possess a whole assortment of other skills such as turning uncomfortable silences to their advantage, working the audience, etc. These skills are what give the audience the insight into the guest’s life or work and help to tell a compelling story. They’re also very hard to come by. Just look at the string of bad talk shows over the years. Being a good moderator is not easy.
2. Panelists don’t prepare. It’s not really their fault. They already have the knowledge and experience the audience is looking for. But they’re essentially being asked to show up and answer questions. Really engaging panelists can rise above mediocre questions by employing their own brand of personality, but let’s face it, not all panelists are that engaging. SXSW was full of panelists like that. People who knew their stuff but were shackled by the format. On the contrary, presentations like “Ajax Kung Fu Meets Accessibility Feng Shui” worked well because the two presenters had a subject they knew well, paired with a well-prepared presentation.
3. Members of a panel are not naked on stage. What I mean by that is that people on stage with others get into a psychological comfort zone that lowers their risk of “looking stupid.” The group dynamic does this by sharing the audience’s attention and scrutiny among all the panel members equally. The psychological effect is further compounded by the fact that at SXSW, the panelists were sitting behind tables with curtains around them, and hiding behind microphones and laptops.
4. It is the extraordinary that leads to the mediocre. When panelists are celebrities of any kind, audience members will laugh or otherwise respond in a more exaggerated way than they would for someone they consider at their same status. This in turn heightens the audience’s perception that a panel was successful even though it would have been considered otherwise boring. This is not to say that some of the SXSW panels weren’t entertaining or that entertainment in itself is bad. But looking at it objectively, it’s hard to say that many of the “celebrity” panels provided a lot of meat. Furthermore, if those attending were really critical, they might admit that the well prepared presentations of those like Kathy Sierra and others were far more inspiring, informational and entertaining.

The presentation on inspiration from Jason Santa Maria and Rob Weychert was one of the few panels that was both entertaining and informative.

I know that many people attend this festival for the networking it provides, and I’m sure that in that case, some may have truly gotten their money’s worth. But for those of us who attended the conference expecting “hands-on, how-to training … in an atmosphere that charges creativity and out-of-the-box thinking,” I hope next year’s SXSW will reconsider the heavy use of the panel format and have the experts present in a way that gives us the perfectly prepared, fully cured meat we came to feast on.

Jason Lynes, Rob Foster, Randy Hall, and Ray Davis enjoying the rooftop atmosphere at Austin’s Iron Cactus.

Note: this article was written by guest writer Rob Foster, a fellow designer over at Northtemple.