So imagine you’re at a conference and a speaker is just bombing it. Maybe they don’t know their audience. Maybe they aren’t covering the topic well. Maybe they aren’t being responsive.
Whatever the reason, they suck.
You also have a Twitter account and maybe a few hundred or few thousand followers. Do you say what is on your mind to those people (and the world) or do you hold back?
The new challenges in speaking
The first mistake? Saying anything at all.
I saw quite a few tweets recently from the 2010 Illinois Annual Conference and Expo that were particularly brutal to a speaker. It felt like the person was getting piled on.
The comments may have been true. At least from the people who were actually there, it seemed the sentiment was genuine frustration.
I felt compelled to chime in. I said I would’ve waited until the end to approach the speaker and the organizers about the session. I wouldn’t hold back any punches but I wouldn’t tweet them either.
I did this with a few things in mind. Knowing that I’ve sat through bad presentations and fumed. Knowing that I’ve bombed on a speaking engagement and felt really terrible about it. Knowing I prepared for one thing only to have to present another at a last minute and felt frustrated. Knowing I’ve gotten bad info from organizers or unruly audience members and felt betrayed and thrown under a bus.
Most of the time, it is a combination of a few factors that lead to a bad speaking experience. Yet, if someone who were prominent were to tweet out that they hated my presentation and thought I bombed, it is only my reputation that suffers. I (very selfishly) worried for my own sake and the sake of anyone who got on the wrong side of a speaking engagement in this new norm.
What do we say? What do we hold back?
Does that make me a bad speaker? Does that mean I can’t take the heat? Probably.
All I know is what I would have appreciated in this case would have been the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to explain before getting assailed in a very public way.
But people also want instant feedback, instant access to analysis and above all, absolute transparency. That’s why I pointed people to the Twitter hashtag for the event and why I was following off and on for the day. Yet when I saw those very negative tweets, I started thinking about why I had such an immediate reaction to the way the pulse of this particular session was delivered to me, the outsider. It’s not an easy line to draw in the sand.
Is there value to everyone involved in holding back the harshest criticism for a one on one conversation with an organizer or speaker? Is it better to tweet it out so that more people can be aware of the mistakes being made? Should we expect all speakers to have a thick enough skin to not only deal with the reactions of those in the room but those thousands of miles away with no direct connection to the event (sometimes numbering in the thousands)?
Your turn
I’d love to get your take on this. Where is the line? Should there be a line? Are some things left better unsaid on Twitter? What should speakers, conference organizers and PR folks do to prepare for those situations?
August 3, 2010 at 6:14 am
Its really easy, and it has been like this since people were debating in the old BBS days.
First. Never write anything that you would not be bold enough to say face to face. And remember that what you write is not private. You should be able to say it in fron of a large audience, with the people you are talking to/about in front of you.
The reason it does not work is something sometimes called the electronic wall of communication. In writing you “say” things you never would say. Its so easy to be really sarcastic in writing, and you feel good after doing it. try the same face to face and you will probably feel embarrased.
August 3, 2010 at 9:04 am
Great comments Christian.
At least for me personally, I don’t even use the standard of saying something face to face. I use the standard of would I say something in a room full of peers and friends into a microphone for all to hear.
For me at least, that keeps the comments in check.
August 3, 2010 at 6:26 am
Lance,
It is frustrating to be listening to a bad speaker. The topic could be great and we could be looking forward to it, but if the delivery is bad… much is lost.
Not everyone is cut out to be a speaker or maybe the person is having an “off” day. If I was up there and I sucked, I would want to know privately, of course. I would not want to read about it via Twitter streams. I also agree with Christian as well about the comments. It’s easy to be snarky in print — but if you won’t say it to the person’s face, then don’t say it at all. Who died and made the criticizers the public speaking police…but I’m sure they’re perfect. Would they even realize the possible impact it could have on their career, their peers, etc. or how it could come back to bite them?
The most important thing is to be human about it! Practice the Golden Rule and be empathetic. I’m burned out on mean and insensitive people all around us.
This is a good reminder that there is a difference between constructive feedback and being downright callous.
August 3, 2010 at 9:14 am
I mentioned it before but I’ve bombed a presentation (06 or 07). Bad. I spent hours developing a presentation for the wrong audience. Miscommunication with the organizers was a big part of it but seeing about a quarter of the room leave in the first ten minutes rattled me.
I felt awful about it. And people were downright mean in their event evaluation. I was also doing it as a favor for someone and they felt embarrassed they invited me.
All of those pieces of feedback made me a better pubic speaker. Even the mean ones if only to demonstrate that people really value their time and the events they go to.
Luckily for me, only a couple hundred people knew about this. I was allowed to screw up, take my punches privately and improve. I wonder if that changes at all now?
August 3, 2010 at 7:06 am
I was watching that debacle on twitter as well. And I had a couple of thoughts as it unfolded….
1. Some of the tweets weren’t constructive or even intelligent – just mean.
2. Without any knowledge of those tweeting I wasn’t able to say whether they were correct or just following along. If you’ve never been a public speaker – you have no way to know the work, effort and skill needed to do it well. Don’t help Tiger Woods with his swing if you can’t break 100 on an easy course. Criticism is easy. Playing the game is hard.
3. As a speaker and a conference planner know this – The world has changed and this is what we have – so be ready to work with it.
The bottom line is that EVERY conference planner needs to know this is the reality of the conference world. The planners need to take this into consideration and have a monitoring and response plan in place. If nothing else, they, the ILSHRM, should have been following and responding.
Unfortunately, loud voices sometimes are considered truth – when in fact they are simply loud.
But as always – there is a learning curve and social norms will come into play and those that are mean-spirited and less than helpful – will get shouted down at some point. That’s my hope anyway – at least before I get up and do my next presentation at a conference.
August 3, 2010 at 8:40 am
Paul, as always you provide a thoughtful and considered response. I like your 3 points. So true. It’s easy to Tweet, it’s another thing to prepare and deliver a talk. Thanks.
August 3, 2010 at 9:20 am
Good points Paul. I was definitely thinking in the back of my mind about the events ERE plans and the speakers we work with. Most of the time, we aren’t working with full-time professional speakers. We’re working with practitioners who speak on occasion and have interesting cases to bring up.
Monitoring and responding is good. Is there something more we can do to prevent it or is it just a wait and see approach?
August 3, 2010 at 7:07 am
I agree with Christian. Social media often makes it way too easy to say things you wouldn’t say face to face. I think this instance goes beyond that though. The people participating are essentially ganging up on this person who, obviously, is at least trying to do a good job. Would you stand up in that room and say “Get off the stage – this is a waste of my time!” Of curse not – it’s rude.
The organizers of the conference don’t need Twitter to tell them their speaker wasn’t good. They head the speaker. People will discuss it after the conference. Feedback will be given privately. It’s unnecessary to publicly and purposely hurt someone – especially when you are not helping anything.
August 3, 2010 at 9:26 am
I think that social media presentations in general are problematic. I gave one not too long ago and a substantial portion of the room was very much on the still learning side. There was a small group of people who were active though.
So publicity wise, it would have been best to tailor a presentation to the folks with voices in the space already. That would have been bad form though. So I had to give tidbits to the active folks and spend most of my time with the beginners. Just like any audience, it is finding a balance and delivering.
August 4, 2010 at 6:20 am
Absolutely! You are so correct – social media presentations are difficult. We just had our first annual users conference in May, and we had a social media seminar. We ran into some of the same issues. Our speaker was super awesome and did a really great job of keeping the conversation interesting and engaging, but for…maybe half (?) of the people there – he didn’t tell them anything they didn’t already know. Conversely, I saw at least a handful of people vigorously taking notes. There were people there that didn’t have a twitter account, a facebook account, and even a couple that weren’t on LinkedIn. I guess the best you can do is try to describe the session as accurately as possible – even then you will run into issues.
We received a lot of feedback about that social media seminar. We were thankful for the feedback. It will help us in planing for our next conference.
August 3, 2010 at 7:17 am
While I agree with the two comments above, I think that specific, constructive feedback delivered with respect can be good.
Comments such as “this speaker is not loud enough” …or pointing out factual errors… or disagreeing with an opinion that is being presented are fine while global attacks are not.
I think people should ask themselves — how would the speaker feel if he/she saw this during or after the presentation? — before posting the Tweet.
August 3, 2010 at 9:33 am
I agree Eva. Feedback is good and I’m trying (probably unsuccessfully) to ride the line between providing feedback, being transparent and also being respectful. I don’t think it is the end of the world for anyone but it did make me think about the future of presentations and public speaking.
August 3, 2010 at 7:22 am
This matter isn’t about transparency. It’s about respect. There are other ways to deliver feedback – I’m sure there’s a formal feedback mechanism for the conference. Be transparent but still respect the individual and the event.
I wonder how will this impact HR pros getting involved in social media. How do you convince the apprehensive newbie to Twitter that they will not become a ‘target’ and the community is supportive? The perception of snarkiness just gives the nay-sayers the opportunity to say “I told you so.”
August 3, 2010 at 8:43 am
Sharlyn, I love what you say about respect. I do think that behavior has a dampening effect. People who might be tentative will not submit to that treatment. What happened seems so much like high school: the cool kids with Twitter accounts pile on someone. It was wrong in my book. If I were a conference organizer it would be so simple for me: I would never again pay for people to come and criticize my conference. And I’d call those people out.
By the way: Do we notice how they don’t pick on the big dogs with big Twitter followings? Just like high school.
August 3, 2010 at 8:53 am
I think we’re seeing the beginning of a social media conference “social norm” develop. As with almost anything new – there are the occasional experiments to see where the edges are. I think this event has shown us those edges. Unfortunately, this is how we learn – through experiment and failure. I am both empathetic and sympathetic to those that had to blaze this trail for us.
What we’re finding is, like in real life – there is a big difference between constructive and destructive criticism. And contrary to many opinions, the virtual world is run under similar if not identical “rules of the common decency.”
That said – if I ran a conference – I still would welcome the comments – but not in the ad hominem way this occurred.
August 3, 2010 at 9:45 am
I don’t know if it will impact anyone quite honestly. I haven’t spent time digging deeper to see if any newbies saw it and reacted. But that’s a possibility.
My legitimate counter-worry is that self-censorship means that a lot of useful information doesn’t get out there because someone will be offended. And I wouldn’t want there to be an impression that I don’t want people using their voice. These things do ebb and flow.
I think you have to be comfortable with where you draw your own line and be prepared to defend it. Of course, I’m going to be biased because I think my line is the right one and best one.
August 3, 2010 at 7:26 am
Lance,
All good points. I think that many people often forget that others are listening when one posts on Twitter. For so long, the online world has been a place for the social media HR community to just talk without worry from outside interference. This is an example how this is no longer the case. We should always practice caution (myself included) whenever we tweet and pick our battles and mind our mouths.
Interestingly enough, ASTD now provides information and guidance in their online speaker packet for their National Conference about Twitter and social media. I thought this was an interesting way to put speakers on notice as well as suggestions on building momentum and promoting their upcoming speech. I have a copy of their (ASTD) packet if anyone is interested. Shoot me an email at [email protected].
Jessica
@blogging4jobs
August 3, 2010 at 9:49 am
Very interesting Jessica. I’ll have to see what ASTD is doing. Conferences once took an active role in connecting speakers with press and generally helping them navigate those waters. Now it seems to make sense to help speakers (especially non-professional ones) navigate those waters.
August 3, 2010 at 7:28 am
I stick to the “if you wouldn’t say it to their face, don’t say it” rule in life – no matter the medium. Which should cut out the downright mean tweets – unless of course you are simply a mean person in which case you don’t care what I or anyone else thinks of what you say.
Also, I think criticism that moves the conversation forward is a good thing, especially if you know the subject and the audience well. I also am probably more Paula Abdul than Simon Cowell when I tweet from conferences – I’d rather emphasize the positive rather than the negative. I might put the negative into a blog post and encourage the speaker and others who were there to weigh in. Twitter’s a bit limiting for a real conversation in that way.
August 3, 2010 at 9:55 am
Limitations of the medium is right. I’ve fallen a little out of love with livetweeting. Part of it is because I’m not very good at it. I’m just more confident of explaining a concept or event in edited long form rather than hundreds of tweets stretched along a couple of days.
If there is an event going on that I can’t participate in, I want to read posts first, tweets second. I appreciate both but blogs always seems to give me more context, understanding, etc…
August 3, 2010 at 7:34 am
I’ve been thinking a lot about bullying and shaming. (Fun topics, I know!)
Here’s the thing: no one EVER sees themselves as a bully. They see themselves as frustrated because they can’t get a desired result, and powerless – so they talk louder, pound on the table, or say cutting things. (My personal weakness.) But generally we don’t know our own strength or how big our audience might be.
A good example is the hubbub that occurred last year when Heather Armstrong, who has a million and half followers on twitter, complained about her Maytag washer or something on twitter. She did it because she was feeling helpless and was unable to get the attention of Maytag through conventional means. When she got busy on twitter, the internet lost it’s SH*T, calling her a Brand Bully and worse. The outpouring against Armstrong was completely disproportionate to the initial tweets about Maytag. You would have thought that Maytag was some helpless old lady and Armstrong was stealing their purse and giving them black eyes. I personally think that up to that point, Armstrong really hadn’t realized how much power she had, and how many people were watching her. Was she within her rights to complain? Yes. Does she now know that when she does complain it’s going to look like bullying to some? Yes, now. But generally we don’t know our own strength until after the damage has been done.
(The whole story can be found at http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/02/twitter-dooce-maytag-markets-equities-whirlpool.html)
There aren’t any good answers – the internet is made up of humans, and we get it wrong all the time. Certainly, I do. But I also think that cutting each other some slack and treating people how we’d like to be treated can go a long way. Even on twitter.
August 3, 2010 at 10:05 am
Good insight Franny. I didn’t want the post to run long because this was more of a feedback post but I would have loved to explore the concepts of power and influence in this discussion too.
So for example, if Armstrong were picking on Papa’s Corner Donut Shop, the reaction would probably be worse. The fact is if you pick on a national brand, the power dynamic is completely different. When I picked on Comcast for their regular customer service not being the same as their Twitter customer service, that’s different. Comcast could run an ad saying “LANCE HAUN IS A D-BAG” in all of their subscribers. I’ve got a very small blog and twitter following.
So I think power and influence dynamics have a major, major impact on the reactions.
August 3, 2010 at 8:20 am
I think people who piled on should be ashamed of themselves. There, I said it. As Sharlyn said, “It’s a matter of respect.” And as Paul said, some of the comments were just mean.
Here’s my take on live Tweeting: If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it. And if you were invited by an organization there and had your tab paid, shut up. Look, you’re not the next Woodward and Bernstein. In fact, you didn’t go to journalism school nor are you a journalist. You’re a Twitterer with bad judgment.
‘Stand the post” is what the Jack Nicholson character said in “A Few Good Men.” It’s easy to be a critic: it’s a lot harder to deliver content.
What I saw happen yesterday with ILSHRM was a pile on. It’s happened before. But it’s embarrassing when people have micro-power go to their heads do something stupid. It was immature. This isn’t high school, folks. This isn’t gossip central. And I think you owe that speaker an apology.
Even more important, those people need to think. I know that’s hard to do when it feels so fun. To feel like you’re breaking news. But really? It’s peoples’ reputations and opportunities we’re talking about here. And it’s not acceptable to hump them over bad news. Think. Consider what you would want to happen to you if you were up there bombing. And if you’re such bigshots, get up there and do it yourself. Prep. Plan. And find out when you get there that circumstances have changed.
I am really disappointed in that piling on. I lost a lot of respect for a number of people. I’m so glad for you and Steve Boese (and now other here) standing up for what’s right.
August 3, 2010 at 10:08 am
Frank – Thanks for your valued input to this conversation. I agree that conference organizers have a lot to consider when they decide to support the presence of a blogger at their event – both in terms of financial support as well as being on the program.
I don’t believe censorship is necessary. But I’d like to think a blogger would exercise good judgment in bringing speaker matters to the conference team’s attention rather than try to be the “Simon Cowell of conferences”. Sorry, snarkiness doesn’t have to be part of “social media entertainment” – it’s just wrong when done in a mean spirited way.
If I were a board member for an organization hosting bloggers, I’d be asking a lot of questions right now. Are we paying for someone to come bash our event?
I’ve said it before, “support the people who support you…”
August 3, 2010 at 10:35 am
Sharlyn, your last sentence says it all…”Support the people who support you.” I think this was an unthinking power trip. I’d like to see conference organizers invite people, but I’d boot the crop who did that. Fool me once…
August 3, 2010 at 9:52 am
Lance, yours was the first comment yesterday I saw that said, hey, a line probably got crossed here. I am glad that you provided the “cooler head.” I was not at the conference, but jumped into the stream with a question that stemmed from the comments from attendees. I agree with you that this is a delicate line between giving constructive feedback and managing the “coverage” of an event with sensitivity. Public speaking is very hard, especially with an emerging technology with users of very different abilities. Need to be sensitive to that. Also, I personally need to be sensitive to the fact that conference organizers (usually volunteers) have an impossible task of making everyone happy with content. Their efforts should not be dismissed if an audience and speaker fail to connect. Sounds like ILSHRM10 has overall been well done.
August 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Thanks R.J.
Most conference coverage I’ve seen doesn’t go like this and yes, it sounds like the Illinois SHRM conference went very well. So I also want to be weary of making a mountain out of a molehill.
But I also want to be thoughtful about what we say too. Snark is fun but not necessarily at the expense of others.
August 3, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Lance-
“…Not at the expense of others.”
Agree 100%
August 3, 2010 at 9:54 am
i haven’t read all of these comments, but i do have strong feelings on this — so forgive me if i repeat! last year a similar situation went down at another conference. to add insult to injury, there were screens for the live twitter stream on stage with the speaker. so this person had the unique and unfortunate experience of watching herself get torn apart. intelligence and decorum should rule the day, despite what technology we have available to us. give that feedback, but give it in a meaningful and useful way. people are not for our sport.
i do agree with paul that conference presenters need to be conscious of this eventuality and plan for it. that planning should begin with vetting their speakers to ensure they are quality. i submitted for the upcoming SXSW health conference. before i could even *enter* my submission for consideration i had to tick three boxes saying that i knew presenting would require a significant upfront time commitment, that i was willing to make that commitment, and that i understood that i could be bounced from the lineup if there was any indication i wasn’t fulfilling my obligation. severe, maybe. but it set the bar–and their speakers probably hit it more than not.
f
f
August 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Setting expectations upfront is going to be a must for conference organizers. If there is going to be a tweet stream behind them or anything else, they need to be prepared for that when they are making their presentations.
August 3, 2010 at 10:01 am
Dude, I saw those tweets and I thought, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
As a public speaker, you can’t make everybody happy. I just wonder if I’ll get a warning when the tide turns against me. How will I know? Will I get a chance to respond? Will my audience be brave enough to tell me that I suck or will I learn about it on Twitter?
If I can be criticized in real-time, I want a chance to respond (& fix my shit) in real-time.
August 3, 2010 at 3:53 pm
I think if you’re a speaker, you deserve the opportunity to respond.
You know how much work and anxiety goes into preparing a kickass presentation. I think the fact that there wasn’t a Q&A was probably frustrating but that’s not some people’s style. Been in many presentations where there isn’t a ton of interaction or they’ve saved questions until after it was all over.
August 3, 2010 at 1:07 pm
This will become self-policing once speakers start reading out loud the twitter comments in the middle of the speech. If it’s fair for one side, then why not the other?
August 3, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I hope we don’t have to resort to that.
August 3, 2010 at 2:56 pm
There were a lot of different dynamics at work in this room. The speakers didn’t exactly bomb, they went way too wide, and not nearly deep enough for their topic. They didn’t deal well with some questions from some of the more savvy people in the room, and they killed some interesting dialogue in the interests of getting through their slides, which was their decision since it was their session.
This generated some low level friction in the sesion, and I think you saw this played out in the dialogue. I was unaware of the full discussion since I was tweeting from my phone and couldn’t follow the full #hashtag stream, but I became little uncomfortable and tried to provide some balance to those people tweeting from outside the room.
I think this could have gone better, but I am not sure that this is the first time I have ever seen it happen. There was a lot of banter in some session at #SHRM09 that could have been called colorful. This could have gone better… i am not sure it was as bad as it is being perceived either…
August 3, 2010 at 3:59 pm
That’s my interpretation too, Michael.
I’m not saying it was the first or last time it happened. It was probably an issue of concentration. Everything coming from the #ILSHRM10 hashtag was about this session at the time I looked and it wasn’t pretty.
August 3, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Interesting comments! I was there. I am not a blogger. I do have a twitter account I rarely use, but turned it on that morning when the organizers told us about the tweeting at the event. It even turned out I had heard of one of the bloggers – Human Racehorses – I thought it would be neat to meet him. Then I missed the first social media session because I went to one on coaching (which was a great session and packed). When I entered the second social media session I turned my phone on and started watching the tweets. As the session started and went on it was clear that it was meant for a very basic audience – even the conference program stated “In this presentation, we’ll talk about social media basics, how to understand the risks and considerations for your unique workforce and guidelines to consider when developing a social medial policy.” So, as soon as basics started to be covered the bored bloggers started tweeting. Then the policy stuff came out and they tweeted some more. Clearly they don’t like SM policies. Clearly they would rather have been the speakers. I was embarrassed for the speakers. They were not at the level the bloggers were (or expected them to be), and then some of the bloggers became rude. Some shifted in the back, whispering to each other, and asked some questions that seemed a bit out of context (I’m sure they were in context for them, but the were definitely not basic questions.). Was the session dry? Yes. Was it basic? Yes. Was I surprised to see that I know more than I thought I did? Yes. But also I was sitting next to two people who had never heard of Twitter. I’m sure they learned a thing or two. Neither of them got up and left and they took notes like they were going to be tested on the material. Anyway, it was a tempest in a teapot. The biggest bummer that came for me is that I didn’t get to meet Human Racehorses. He didn’t blog nastily about the presenters, but every time I wanted to go to him during breaks today he was near the other bloggers, and I was too intimidated by them to go and introduce myself. So my cat pin and I kept our distance, and I am reminded that being polite really is such an important social skill.
August 3, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Very interesting perspective, Megan. I’ll be interested to see responses to this.
August 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm
My earlier cell phone response wasn’t very articulate, Megan. I am sorry we didn’t get to speak at the conference. That is certainly one of the reasons I attend these events. I am also glad to hear that you didn’t perceive my tweets as negative. In the future if we are ever in the same building, please just say hi. I always make time to speak to people.
If you would like to connect by phone or email, you can drop me an email at michael.vandervort (@) gmail.com I will be happy to give you a call!
Thanks for sharing your comments and perspective. Hearing from someone else in the room is illuminating for me.
(sent from my Delta flight to ATL via gogowifi)
August 3, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Wow, this is fascinating and I apparently didn’t realize exactly how “big” this ILSHRM thing had gotten until the email messages came my way and the phone started ringing. A few thoughts come to mind:
1) Digital Courage: Agree 100% with all those who have said that you shouldn’t put something online that you wouldn’t say to someone’s face. I’m not afraid to approach a speaker or raise my hand and be challenging in real-time. Don’t post it if you won’t back it up face-to-face.
2) Feedback: Like all things in life, we rarely harangue people for being effusive about something but we do for being overly critical. I didn’t see all the tweets but I’ll tell you that the super positive coverage received a fraction of the RTs relative to the negative. So, we’re all culpable for not embracing the good over the bad.
3) Respect: You don’t get my respect automatically when you take the stage. You earn it via your actions, content, thought leadership, style, etc. I’ve bombed a million times and I’ll say I’ve learned much more from negative feedback over my career. Grow a thicker skin if you’re standing behind the podium.
What we’re seeing is no different than reading the dailies after opening night at the theater. It’s just that now it comes faster than ever before. Let’s encourage conversation of all types and (as someone mentioned above) use this as a learning experience. Finally – and I can’t emphasize this enough – I’d ask that those who are most critical get in their speaking proposals now. You can’t complain if you’re not willing to step up and evolve things forward. Great discussion Lance!
August 3, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Thanks Mark and great points.
I especially like the point about emphasis of negative over positive. We see it in the news every night. People even complain about the positive pieces of news by calling them “puff pieces.” If we write an honest review about a HR product, people snore. If we rip it to shreds, they share and comment.
I’ve learned a lot from the negative too but I’ve been allowed to bomb in the relative anonymity of 200-500 people. That’s not pleasant but you can recover. I worry about young speakers or speakers who may only present once every couple of years. People that need to be allowed to make a mistake or two without it getting publicized to thousands of people.
I got a post-event comment that said, “Shouldn’t be allowed to speak to anyone, ever.” That’s it. Thank you Richard for not posting that one to Twitter.
August 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Meg n sorry u didnt say hi. Glad u didnt think i was nasty as well.
August 3, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I really appreciate Megan and Mike for their first-hand accounts. Everyone else seems to be arm chair QB’ing this thing into its rightful grave.
Note to Megan: I truly hope that you continue speaking up, and please don’t be intimidated by the “bloggers”. It took me a bit to figure out that they have the same asshole ratio (1:1) as the rest of the human population. I’d love to speak directly with you about your conference experience, so you can feel free to email me at fzupan.cle at gmail.com
Cheers,
FZ
August 3, 2010 at 5:59 pm
I’m a blogger. I only armchair quarterback.
August 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm
As one of the tweeters in the room, I would like to clarify a few things that have been said which are both accurate and others which are kind of accurate.
First off, I was not a “paid” tweeter to be here. I live 4 miles north of the IL border and the IL SHRM is as close to my “home chapter” as it gets. I didn’t get paid for my travel, I shared a hotel with someone, and the meals that were covered for me were the attendee meals and dinner that we went to as a group last night. Regardless of the situation, I came in and tweeted about the event – much of the event – without comment or fanfare. Then that sticky social media session came along.
If you read my tweets you will see how excited I was to be there – the amazing nuggets I learned from the keynotes, etc Do I expect everyone to be a master speaker – no. Have I done my fair share of speaking events where everything changed at the last minute and as Lance said “i felt thrown under the bus” – Absolutely.
But this isn’t about that and while its easy to take the concept of what it was and turn it into something much more and talk about the fear of someone stumbling a little bit or having a session that is way above or below the heads of the audience – that isn’t what this is nor what I would have been so frustrated over.
I have blogged/tweeted a number of conferences over the last few years and always do so with a lot of respect to the event and speakers its self – especially when it appears they are having a bad day. I’m very sympathetic and have been on both sides of the criticism. I’ve been to conferences so disturbingly bad put together that we are celebrating the little successes – like someone found water for attendees to drink. Illinois shrm wasn’t one of those and all this negative attention on one session missing all of the positive we covered.
Many of the people that criticized the bloggers/tweeters there did so based on what the context they *thought* we were talking about was. Which, understandably, probably wasn’t properly conveyed on twitter. The ILSHRM director and staff were in the room and even sitting with us for a period of time during the presentation. The ILSHRM hired PR person this morning had nothing but glowing things to say about the coverage. Many of the attendees came up and talked to us about what we were doing and asked us to show them exactly what twitter was and how they could really use it for their business.
To Meghan who was in the room, I’m sorry you didn’t feel comfortable approaching me. I responded to your comments and suggestions (I think it was you based on name) and asked to meet you in person with no response.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mikes statement above – this had nothing to do with it being an entry level session or the speakers “bombing” because of their experience level. The issues I had are exactly those that Mike mentioned – they didn’t deal well with questions from anyone in the room and they didn’t want any dialogue or discussion (again, not from us at all) . My issues that he didn’t raise was the fact that they didn’t offer any Q&A time for attendees, used old statistics (Feb 2008) and never really explained too much of the *how* for companies that wanted to get started.
I also took exception to them referring to themselves as “Social Media Experts” over and over and over.
I was also not following the #ilshrm10 stream from that session and didn’t see a lot of the additional conversations that were brought up in the process from people who were not in attendance and didn’t know about them until much later that evening in the SHRM tweetup that night. I also didn’t always see when messages were going out at the same time or in close proximity from my blogging/tweeting people that all happened to be in that same session.
With regard to my own personal tweets, I apologized almost immediate for being passionate on this topic and wanting something that the attendees could walk out the door and use. For 2 of the “snarky” quotes that were done out of frustration – I soon removed those from the feed.
I did approach the speakers as well as the CEO of the firm offering to have a discussion with them.
In full disclosure to those that don’t want to go though and see what I said – here are my tweets (not the @ replies to comments made to me) around this session:
*And more walk outs…. #shrm10 (But blogsquad still here) Mon Aug 2 16:53:00 2010 via TweetDeck
*Conversation starts “Wait, we need to stop – I have more slides” #ILSHRM10 4:44 PM Aug 2nd via TweetDeck
*Social Media Speaker has redefined Gen Y as people born after 86. (shaking head and sighing) #ILSHRM10 4:16 PM Aug 2nd via TweetDeck
*If you can be an expert w/2 tweets a week does that make me a diva, guru, or addict? #ilshrm10 4:10 PM Aug 2nd via TweetDeck
*I’m in another Social Media in HR session. #ILSHRM10 4:03 PM Aug 2nd via TweetDeck
*This afternoon session is the same as the morning session & is packed – lets do an impromptu “How to use SM” session tomorrow #ILSHRM10 4:07 PM Aug 2nd via TweetDeck
I’m not here to undermine credibility of anyone that has given up their time to speak and wants to educate people on subjects. Many of you that have commented know me on a personal level and know that isn’t the way I am. I’m a huge supporter of this community and helping as many of its members as I can in whatever capacity that I can.
With that said, would someone please pull the blogs and tweet streams coming up from SHRM, ERE, HREvolution & many other events over the past few years and tell me just how different this was. I had already removed the 2 tweets which I felt crossed the line when this post went live and will stand behind these messages as many of them were simple observations about what was going on in the room.
Is is highly difficult to get a slap on the hand from your community. Absolutely. Is is harder to get the slap on the hand from people you considered to be friends. Yes. Could a lot of the drama been dealt with via a simple DM saying – I’m sure the session is heated, but your tone is coming out bitchy. 100%.
I admire, respect and appreciate this community more than you will ever know. I have never claimed to be perfect or someone that won’t make mistakes. I have promised to be authentic and tell how I feel and sometimes (like many of you) my emotion gets the best of me.
August 4, 2010 at 8:52 am
Thanks for the clarification, Sarah. I can only speak for myself but I don’t hold you to some impossible standard. I thought you reacted fine to the situation after it unfolded too.
I think the point people are missing on this is that this is less about the individual reactions to one session. As you said, it does happen elsewhere. In this case, it simply inspired a post about the intersection of public speaking and Twitter.
The challenge for speakers, organizers and people that cover events is feeling out norms and standards. I’m guessing at the next event, there will be other tweets that people will react to. Even if everyone who is currently on Twitter figured out the norm (impossible), new people are added everyday.
I think this is a reality of public speaking now. I know what I prefer but it is looking like that is a bit optimistic. Even if you’re a good speaker, people are going to criticize and disagree with your message. Being as prepared as possible is probably the better way than expecting that everyone would follow the norms and protocol you want.
August 6, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Sarah,
I didn’t get the message you sent. Just FYI. No biggie, I’m over it. The conference was great. Back to work…
Megan
August 3, 2010 at 8:44 pm
I was at the conference this week but not in this particular session. However, I was following the tweets coming out of the session. Certainly that hour took on a life of its own. I found it interesting that tweets from various parts of the country were as snarky (or more) than those being tweeted from the room. Reminded me of the “looky loos” on the highway when there has been a bad accident.
I still consider myself a newbie to the social media experience. My first attempts to “tweet a conference” was at the National SHRM conference in San Diego and then this State conference in Chicago. From my point of view, there seemed to be three main focal points of the tweets.
First, there was sharing of great content from the sessions of the conference. It allows those unable to attend a specific session to get the great quotes and content they are missing. In my opinion, this is a great value of the entire social media space.
The second is an attempt to communicate the emotion, atmosphere and feel of the event. This too is a great service to those not able to attend. It provides that intangible sense of what it is really like to be in the moment of the conference. This is a fun and interesting part of what can come out of these meetings from those tweeting and blogging from the conference.
The third is a bit mixed in value to me. There is another undercurrent that seeks to be a “review or critique” of the event/speaker/subject matter. Sometimes it sounds a bit defensive. I mean seriously, at SHRM10 every time a the session host asked people to turn off cell phones, multiple tweets would go out defiantly refusing to turn off cell phones. I didn’t turn mine off either…but I get it…turn off the ringer! Then at other times these “review/critiques” sound a bit Siskel and Ebertish. Im not sure how I feel about this one. Its somewhat interesting… It can absolutely add to the debate of the subject matter… but if you are not there to hear the presentation, it can become difficult to put those tweets in context? And from time to time the medium itself can become the topic of debate. I suppose that has value too, as it gives the opportunity to hone the craft.
I applaud the leadership at IL SHRM for the effective efforts at the conference to teach and train HR leaders on the value, benefit and relevance of social media to the HR professional. Equally, I appreciate all the attendees who were tweeting and blogging. It was a great experience. All of them contributed to the experience and educational value of the conference. I look forward to the next event!
And, Sarah, thanks for your vulnerability in this post. You are the real deal! You and the other three bloggers at the conference were an important part of our experience.
August 4, 2010 at 9:10 am
Thanks for commenting, Jeff. I agree with how you both categorized the types of tweets and their value. I don’t know if there is a clear value to tweeting analysis. I think of analysis as context + critical situation + analysis. That’s a mouthful for 140 characters.
Pingback: Do We Lack Empathy — hr bartender
August 4, 2010 at 4:28 am
Interesting to see that for all the hundreds of positive tweets that were put out about the speakers, presentations, and conference, and the blogs that were also 100% positive, not one person who commented here with harsh negative backlash took even one second to RT or comment on any of the positive. I just checked my own positive post on the event from several days ago and don’t see any of your names. Hmmm….
Not one of you took time to ask what really happened.
Not one of you took time to find out that in person, this was not even that big of a deal.
This presenter was giving inaccurate facts to a group that paid to learn about a topic. I won’t defend Sarah or the other blogger who spoke up in the session because Sarah has done that. However, watching more than ten people leave the session, seeing Sarah’s questions dismissed over and over, then prompted frustration. I personally stopped tweeting and put the computer away and just sat there and watched it unfold.
I have seen this happen at many conferences. The “mean” tweets and blogs certainly came out at SHRM10 in San Diego and at HRevolution. As an organizer, I expect that and move on. In this case, the ILSHRM board was happy with us and already asked us back, so next time you all may be interested to ask about the rest of the story before you bash. Maybe not.
Who are the real sharks in social media? Those who see or smell blood, then come running.
August 4, 2010 at 5:01 am
But the whole discussion here is about negative feedback. Its not about the conference or even about that session (the session is not even mentioned in the blog post).
August 4, 2010 at 7:57 am
Thanks Trish. I think the focus on this singular session in the comments drowns out the point. It’s just an example, the one that inspired this post for sure, but an example nonetheless. I’m sure there have been other instances of it happening. Certainly, if it were just a case of some sort of necessary behavioral modification, it wouldn’t warrant a post.
The overall conference sounded like it was great too. The tweets on the whole were excellent and I was recommending that my followers follow it and separately I was hoping that many of those tweets would transpire into posts about the event too.
I think these types of situations adds a different wrinkle to speaking though. Some speakers I’ve talked to are indifferent about it. Others feel strongly one way or another. And I do think it is different than a review after the fact on a blog but the explanation would take quite a while and it is pretty nuanced.
August 4, 2010 at 4:51 am
Isn’t calling people out in a blog post the same as calling out a speaker via tweets?
August 4, 2010 at 7:24 am
That’s one way to read it I suppose.
Another way is a glance at the broader picture. I could have written most of this post as a third party observer. Most of it is a run down of a recent example and asking for feedback on where people thought the boundaries were for live tweeting public speakers (particularly when you have something negative to say).
Obviously I have a point of view about the issue. I won’t shy away from that. But there is an fairly dramatic split in people who think it is okay to be transparent (even if it is a little painful) and people who would rather keep criticism private (even if there may be some self-censorship there).
It wasn’t the first and it won’t be the last time it happens but it was the first time I really stood up and took notice of it as a true outsider. It added a different layer to the speaker/audience dynamic that I hadn’t witnessed before.
August 4, 2010 at 6:59 am
A few thoughts:
1. Tweeting at events = stupid. There, I said it. You know who tweets at events? People who are bored. This whole idea of multitasking… it’s bullshit. If you’re tweeting, you’re not really engrossed in the presentation.
2. Another reason why Tweeting at events is stupid: It’s all out of context. You take meaningful, contextual discussion and distill it into 140 character sound-bites. What value does that add to anyone?
3. Have I tweeted negatively about speakers during events before? Yes. And I regretted it later. If you won’t say it to someone’s face, don’t say it on Twitter or a blog post or whatever.
Cheers!
Chris
August 4, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Wow…Don’t agree with that at all Chris. I enjoy reading tweets from events. Some tweets I don’t connect with…probably because context is missing or the tweet is poorly written. But I enjoy the little nuggets of wisdom that often comes. At times the tweet drives me to the writer’s blog or speaker’s web page for more information. I think its a viable source information (and sometimes inspiration).
Jeff
August 4, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Chris,
1. I disagree. You’re expressing a pretty broad generalization. I’ve paid more attention to the presentations that I’ve live tweeted than the ones I haven’t – mainly because it requires focus on the content in order to extract worthwhile tidbits.
2. I disagree here as well (in part). A single tweet, taken out of context, may carry very little meaning. A single tweet, taken in the context of a conversation (or a hashtag), has the potential of filling in the cracks. From what I’ve seen of conference tweeting, the hashtag approach is the most common one.
3. I agree. I guess I’ll have to prepare for you calling my conference tweeting stupid when we finally meet
Michael
August 5, 2010 at 4:17 am
Michael,
1. You can disagree if you want, but that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s a scientific fact that the brain cannot concentrate on two tasks that require concentration at once. If you’re focused on typing a Tweet, you’re missing what’s being said.
2. Many Tweets that share a hashtag do NOT provide appropriate context. Instead, what you end up with a clusterfuck of out-of-context sound-bites. The context that leads to the sound-bite is just as important as the quotable nugget itself. A presentation, when done right, builds a story. Twitter strips that story away when people use it for conference Tweeting.
3. I won’t call it stupid, but I probably will ignore it.
Chris
August 5, 2010 at 8:17 am
Chris, I’m with you.
1. It’s a matter of mindfulness. I can’t imagine having a one-on-one conversation with someone and live Tweeting it. Imagine the possibilities. My sense about live Tweeting is the same as about all the choices for characters and slides flying in on Powerpoint: just because it’s there doesn’t mean you should use it. Right now it seems like live Tweeting is amateur hour. People get a rush from being retweeted. And really, for what? What’s that have to do with a conference getting more business.
2. There’s no possibility that a Tweet can create context. Presenters can speak at 180 to 300 words A MINUTE. We’re talking about 140 CHARACTERS in Tweeting. I think I’ll live Tweet the next movie I see…it won’t tell the plot, I’ll just comment on the special effects flaws. Imagine what Inception would be like in live Tweets. Ugh.
3. My personal policy is if I get a book for review and I don’t like it, I don’t review it. I send a note to the author saying why. I know that the author spent a lot of time and sweat working on his or her book — it’s not for me to savage it on my blog. If I go to a conference and someone isn’t doing what I like, I don’t go to them…I use the formal review channels. That’s me.
I think little flashes of social media “power” has caused some to misbehave. I’m not saying it’s concentrated on ILSHRM10. It isn’t. But I do think that this kind of thing rips away credibility. Want a place at the table? Don’t be an amateur. Don’t come off as snarky. The Big Boys and Girls don’t do snark. They aren’t the peanut gallery and never have been.
Want to be a journalist? Look at what good journalists do. They don’t live tweet.
August 9, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Frank,
Sorry for the delay, but I did want to respond to your points.
1. I can’t imagine tweeting a one-on-one conversation with someone either… unless, of course, they say something funny and I just have to share it. Your point seems to assume that live-tweeting has a business purpose behind it. I don’t believe that everyone tweets out conference information for financial/business gain… often times it’s just for fun or because the “Tweeter” is interested in the topic and chooses to share it. That said, conferences sure seem interested in having people tweet lately.
2. Again… it would be pretty tough to accomplish the task of tweeting out a movie. Although, it sounds like a fun challenge. As I mentioned in the response to Chris, I don’t think the goal is to tweet out everything… just the pieces that seem important (which is completely subjective). Tweeting information from a conference is not meant (imho) to replace the conference… it’s just a fun way of sharing some golden nuggets and/or perceived lessons.
3. I suppose that we all have different levels of passion for different topics. If that book you read shared bad information, would you be inclined to correct it in some way or allow it to be shared under the guise of “expertise?”
Your two others points…
1. Snark: Being as polite as possible seems like a good policy.
2. Journalist: I don’t believe that all conference tweeters want to be journalists… usually, they are just interested people, having fun and sharing messages they think are valuable.
Michael
August 9, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Chris,
Sorry for the delay. Back to the points:
1. I would equate tweeting at events to taking notes in meetings. I write down (and tweet) the things that I think are important and/or relevant. Do I remember or write down everything that’s being said? Of course not. Just the points that I think are important.
2. I guess that depends on how you define “appropriate context.” In my humble live-tweeter opinion, it’s not about delivering the entire presentation… it’s about sending out the cliff notes. If a conference wanted to provide the entire story/presentation, they could always live stream it… which would solve the issue you present. But, not all of them do.
3. Then I guess it won’t bother you.
Michael
August 4, 2010 at 8:57 am
I think that feedback is necessary. negative feedback propels you forward and you do things differently (and hopefully better) the next time.
and as to the medium Twitter, well, it’s a two-edged sword. it can go either way…
ask yourself though, what you and the presenter can gain/loose from the criticism. and then apply your own morale values.
cheeky question: if a famous politician i.e. bombs a presentation, will you read about it on Twitter?
August 4, 2010 at 9:01 am
I think the frustration lies in the fact that there are hundreds of us who have relevant information to present through a more dynamic presenting style.
Yet the following seem to be criteria for presenting at major conferences:
* Secret Handshake
* Passing of envelope with $$$ in it
* Your company sponsors the event
People Tweet at events because they are bored, because the content sucks and the speaker cannot engage his/her audience. There are many people who will present better content, in a more dynamic fashion, without expectation of event ROI. There are people who believe in giving back because they care about the cause.
Unfortunately, conferences are seen as a way to gain certification credits. Material must be ‘safe’ and thus uninteresting. It would be great to escape a conference having learned something for my $1,200.
xo
Dave
August 4, 2010 at 7:10 pm
This comment is in response to Dave’s comments. As an organizer of the conference where the presentation at the center of all this was given, I am a little offended of your implications on how speakers are chosen. There was no $$ changing hands, no secret handshakes nor was the company that employed those presenters was a exhibitor/sponsor. They filled out a form for our call for speakers just like the rest of the presenters did.
Are some of the presentations safe, yes. Uninteresting, to some yes, to others no. A conference like ours try to appeal to a wide range of interests that make up our profession. Is recertification important to us, yes. Sessions without credit attached go unattended. I would have loved to include some “unconference” type topics, but at this point we have not found a way to include them but we are continuing to investigate that to appeal to even more HR proffessionals.
I encourage you to apply to speak at ILSHRM11. We review and accept speakers based upon the merits and references of the presentation.
August 5, 2010 at 8:31 am
I’m pretty sure we could make a cool HR handshake, though.
August 4, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Lance,
You bring up an interesting topic of conversation.
I agree with you that it totally sucks when you know that the presentation went poorly. Remember back to the first HREvolution? You and I gave a presentation on blogging. You did a pretty good job… I, on the other hand, was having a terrible day. I remember leaving that session wishing that I would have stuck with drinking coffee and tweeting in the back of the room. Bad job on my part and one that could have left me open for some ridicule.
While I wasn’t there to witness it, my impression of the circumstances (based on the Twitter stream) around this particular situation at #ILSHRM10 is that it had less to do with a poor performance and more to do with the spreading of misinformation. You see, if I would have complimented my poor presentation at HREvolution with speckles of false or bad information, I’m pretty sure the audience would have tweeted out their thoughts. I would have probably deserved it and surely learned from my mistake.
Sarah, Trish, Mike and the many others who have involved themselves in this community, dedicate an extreme amount of time to pursuing the most current, relevant and accurate information. We, as a group, hold each other and others accountable for delivering to those standards… often times publicly. We have all developed our own styles for how we like to share public praises or, in this case, critiques. Our personal brands and learning curves are all developing – trial and error and success and… (rinse, wash and repeat).
I guess what I’m trying to get at it is that we live in a new age. People can and will be passionate about their topics. Whereas private feedback may have been the norm 2 years ago, the feedback methods of today are public. That’s just the way it is now.
As a potential solution, speakers who know that live tweeting may be taking place should call it out during the presentation. Answer critiques on the spot and perhaps challenge them. If they know their topics as well as they say, this shouldn’t be an issue. If they don’t… well, shame on them for acting like they do. ESPECIALLY those who are proclaiming any sort of social media expertise.
Just my two cents…
I’d like to see you write more on this topic from a general perspective. How speakers can prepare for delivering in the age of SM. Could be a great ongoing dialogue and very valuable for those that are just getting introduced to the subject.
Michael
August 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm
You didn’t do as bad as you think.
My thoughts on expertise and social media experts specifically are best summed up here:
http://rehaul.com/lets-stop-talking-about-social-media-experts/
http://rehaul.com/the-myth-of-the-expert/
I hate being repetitive
Thanks for the comment Michael. We’ll all keep touching on these topics as they come up.
Lance
August 9, 2010 at 10:02 pm
All about the trial and error – that’s what makes it fun though, right?
August 5, 2010 at 6:22 am
The level of discourse and dialogue on this topic has led me to an obvious conclusion: This is probably a good time to begin pre-conference testing of speakers for performance enhancing drugs. I personally believe that the burgeoning HR conference industry faces credibility issues if it continues to ignore the obvious scourge of PEDs. I recommend empaneling a blue-ribbon committee (something HR should be somewhat familiar with) with an immediate charter to clean up our conferences!
August 5, 2010 at 8:20 am
I support PED testing on the HR conference circuit.
August 5, 2010 at 8:21 am
I was at the ILSHRM conference on Monday, including the session in question, and have wanted to read the blog posts about what happened (I think there’s more than one). Here are a few thoughts from me, both specific and general.
1. The session was terrible. The speakers, god bless ‘em, presented bad, out-of-date information, and didn’t seem to have a true, in-depth understanding of the topic. The session was also highly redundant with a similar session earlier in the day. I was as frustrated as Sarah and the other folks sitting in the back corner of the room. It’s challenging enough to educate rookies about social media, but it’s beyond aggravating when you witness them being given bad information. Mike VanDervort was sitting to my right, and at one point I leaned over to him to say that I was glad he was live tweeting the event rather than me, because I would have had a hard time containing my frustration as well. Instead, I wrote copious comments on the feedback form.
2. Though I understand their frustration, the social media experts in the back of the room came across as bullies. The first comment was a direct criticism of the presentation (something to the effect of, “What you clearly missed” or “The mistake you made”), which would put any speaker on the defensive. Though well intentioned, the comments didn’t come across as constructive and didn’t create the opportunity for dialogue. They talked for a good 5 minutes before the speakers took the session back over. I remember writing in my feedback notes that there was a mutiny at 4:40. And once their frustration was unleashed, they couldn’t contain it, talking among themselves for the rest of the session. That alienated lots of folks in the room and contributed to the disastrousness of the session. (contextual note: there was a bit of pushback from them in the first session on social media as well, which came across as similarly and unnecessarily harsh)
3. I’m not sure what, if anything, the speakers learned from this experience. I think they were oblivious to how bad their information was (i.e., they didn’t know what they didn’t know – which is extremely common in these still-early days of social media adoption). And though I think they knew their presentation was not well received by the guest bloggers, I think they dismissed it as a form of heckling.
After reading this post and the comments, I’m reminded of something I think Miss Manners said: the worst breach of etiquette is informing someone else of their etiquette breach. Erring in one’s approach to pointing out someone else’s (social media) mistakes is ironic and avoidable. Twitter didn’t impact the underlying dynamics of what happened, but it did change the scale. The speakers incurred more damage to their credibility than they would have without it, but so it seems did the tweeters.
Thanks for bringing up this topic, Lance. You generated a great dialogue with many great insights and lessons learned. I know John and the ILSHRM planners will take all the feedback into consideration for next year’s conference, and I hope other conference planners will as well.
Courtney Hunt
Founder, Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community
August 5, 2010 at 8:28 am
Thanks, Courtney, for the full context. That’s very helpful. (And I dig what you do in SMinOrgs. Big fan.)
August 5, 2010 at 8:45 am
Thanks, Frank. Your support of SMinOrgs is much appreciated!
August 5, 2010 at 7:35 pm
I would point out that lumping everyone together is unfair. I personally did not make any comments or pushback to speakers at either social media session. It’s not fair to just say “the bloggers” did it when I did not raise my hand nor did I interrupt. I tweeted positively about the first session and when the second session became too bad to bear, I personally shut my netbook down and just watched it unfold. Those are my facts. For what it is worth.
August 6, 2010 at 6:14 am
Thanks for clarifying your role, Trish. My intent wasn’t to lump everyone together. Since all of the tweeters except Mike were behind me, I didn’t know who said what (either live or via the Twitter stream, which I wasn’t following), so I had to speak in general terms.
August 6, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I agree, Trish, you very professional and fair. Thank you for that!
Lauren
August 6, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Thank you, Courtney, for your thoughtful comments.
As a speaker in the first Social Media session, I have been watching this unfold as a fascinating case study.
Unfortunately, this was not an encouraging step for those who were curious about, but not yet comfortable with, twitter and social media. Ironic that the very thing that caused the backlash, the passion of social media, may have hurt the cause on a greater scale than the presentation(s).
I have approached this with the same advice you gave that I shared in the presentation, “Embrace the loss of control”. What can I learn from this?
I think bloggers and speakers and conference planners can all learn from this experience – if we are all open to it.
Thank you all for providing great food for thought!
Lauren
August 7, 2010 at 6:42 am
I agree, Lauren. I have learned a lot from this experience.
Your comment about the ironic potential for this experience to turn people away from social media is especially powerful. I often feel as if social media advocates are their own worst enemies because their passion can be (mis)construed as arrogance. I work very hard to keep my own belief in the transformative power of social media in check, especially when I’m talking to folks who are resistant. People are very afraid of the risks of engaging, and an experience like this can reinforce their fears – and in their minds, justify continued inaction. But there’s a cost to inaction as well, and the benefits of engaging far outweigh the costs. The key is to educate folks while respecting their point of view and starting point. I’ve found it requires tremendous patience, something that does not come naturally to me!
August 6, 2010 at 5:40 am
This year at the ILSHRM conference we tried something fairly new. We invited bloggers to attend and to blog and tweet. We encouraged conference participants to tweet during sessions. I think it worked well. I was in the room, in question, as well. I saw first hand how this event went down and it was not anything like it has been portrayed. At no time were any of the audience members disrespectul or speaking with out being called on.
We tried something on the edge and it has resulted in a lot of conversation, which I think is good. Lance when was the last time you had 70+ comments on a post.
One last comment, with all due respect I strongly disagree with David’s comments, but he is entitled to his opinion.
August 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm
When is the last time I wrote about a conference I didn’t attend?
Good discussions about limits of social media. Maybe a little too focused on the session that got my brain going (and less focused on the general concept of tweeting, and covering, live events and appropriate limits) but that’s how it goes.
August 6, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Lance-
Thanks for providing the outlet for a large portion of this discussion. I think that your opinion is valued and respected by many.
August 6, 2010 at 7:27 am
More reflections from me … This episode and its aftermath remind me of a point I make in all my social media presentations: simple doesn’t mean easy. In fact, the simplicity of many social media platforms is deceptive. I encounter people all the time who underestimate how difficult it is to understand, let alone master, how to succeed in the Digital Era. I’ve invested over a year of my life concentrating on social media almost exclusively, and I still learn new things every day.
I am familiar with the two presenters in this session, as well as the company they work for, and I believe they are top-notch professionals who provide excellent service to their clients. Social media is not the main focus of their work, but it’s something they’ve begun exploring in response to client requests. Given their other priorities, I suspect they don’t have time to immerse themselves in social media to the level necessary to develop true expertise. As I noted in my earlier comment, they don’t know what they don’t know. They certainly know more than the average person, and more than their clients, but without the ability to stay current, their information and knowledge quickly become out of date. I noted this also in the morning presentation on social media, and I see it often when I talk to folks – including people who have a professional responsibility to be up-to-date (e.g., attorneys).
Another reality of living in the Digital Era is that mistakes are inevitable. Even social media experts make mistakes. I know I do – regularly! Another thing I remind people of is that even though sharing via social media channels can be fun, it’s serious business that should never be taken lightly. I live on Lake Michigan and know not to underestimate its power. Its calmness on a beautiful day can fool one into thinking it’s a gentle body of water that’s great to play in, but under the right conditions it can become an angry, dangerous tempest. Social media is like that as well – the factors contributing to a perfect storm can appear almost without warning, and even the best sailors can find themselves being buffeted by wind and waves that seem to come out of nowhere. In this case, a few errant tweets taken out of context created a mini-storm with some far-reaching ripple effects. In the grand scheme of things it was a minor event, but it’s still illustrative of the potential negative consequences of digital missteps. I commend Sarah in particular for the actions she took in the aftermath, including deleting the tweets she felt were most inappropriate, writing a blog post to explain (not defend) her actions, and including her reflections on this thread. Her actions demonstrated some good practices for handling these kinds of situations: acknowledge what happened, take appropriate responsibility, and respond in a productive way. And I suspect she has also learned not to make the same “mistake” again.
We are still in the “wild west” days of social media. I applaud the pioneers who are willing to blaze trails and take risks and create opportunities for all of us to learn the best ways to move forward. This is a great social media adoption case study, and I commend Lance again for providing a forum for folks to reflect on it.
August 6, 2010 at 11:08 am
@Courtney – Do you really think Social Media isn’t easy?
I think in HR we actually have the opposite problem. People think it’s way too hard and never get involved. It’s going to come back to bite our profession in the ass soon.
Don’t get me wrong: It takes work. But that doesn’t mean it’s complicated or difficult. It’s just hard work.
August 7, 2010 at 7:00 am
Chris – As in almost everything we do, hard work is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success with social media. You also have to work smart, and that requires sophistication. I am planning to write a chapter in the Social Media Primer I’m developing that fleshes out my ideas on this point, but let me share three points as briefly as possible.
1. Jeremiah Owyang has an ongoing post in his blog about brands that have been punk’d by social media. Similarly, there are lots of examples of both employees and managers paying fairly hefty prices for doing bone-headed things in the social media space.
2. Many legal cases that address new issues that have arisen in the Digital Era are now making their way through the court system. One of these cases (Quon vs. City of Ontario) was recently decided by the Supreme Court. Privacy rights and monitoring concerns are two of the biggest issues being addressed in these cases. There are also a number of legislative developments at the federal level that will have bearing on how digital communication will be managed in the future.
3. With respect to the human capital issues, the breadth of the impact of social media is likely to be so pervasive that every aspect of human capital management will change. I address some of these ideas in Parts 2 and 6 of the Primer:
http://www.sminorgs.net/2010/03/social-media-primer-part-2-intraorganizational-applications-the-juggernaut-is-bigger-than-you-think.html
http://www.sminorgs.net/2010/04/social-media-primer-part-6-human-capital-management-challenges-leave-no-rosetta-stone-unturned.html
As I noted in my previous comment, underestimating the power and risks associated with social media is a dangerous proposition. But avoiding it is risky as well. Ultimately, HR professionals don’t get a vote about whether they’ll be involved. Given that, it’s in their best interests to prepare themselves to move forward as soon as possible. Proceeding with caution is well advised, but proceed they must.
August 7, 2010 at 9:08 am
@Courtney – I don’t agree.
The nuances of social media can certainly be complicated. Like anything, mastery takes dedication.
But as a social media consultant, it’s in your financial best interest to convince beginners that they cannot do this on their own. That’s it’s scary and complicated and they’re going to get destroyed if they aren’t really, really careful.
That’s just wrong. And it’s the last thing HR pros need.
It’s tough enough to get HR pros to try this stuff as it is. Convincing them that their whole world will end if they don’t proceed with extreme caution – it’s only going to scare more people off from getting involved in this stuff.
August 7, 2010 at 10:38 am
Actually, Chris, I DO want them to do it on their own (please see, for example, Part 5 of the Primer, entitled “You Can’t Outsource Leadership”), and the last thing I am is a fear mongerer. I have dedicated tremendous time, energy, and intellectual capital to educating people about social media without any financial reward at all, and I will continue to do so.
Your reaction to my comments indicates you’ve interpreted both my words and meaning in a way I didn’t intend, which illustrates the limits of communicating via a digital platform without complete context (which interestingly takes us back to the idea behind Lance’s original post). Without really knowing who I am or what I do, you may want to be a bit more careful with the assumptions and judgments you make about me as a professional and the work I do. I invite you to explore my digital presence more fully and reach out if you’d like to have a chat. I expect you’ll find that we agree far more than we disagree.
August 7, 2010 at 1:56 pm
@Courtney,
First, my sincere apologies for implying that you were a “fear monger.” Though I didn’t actually say so directly, in rereading my comments I can see how you would take what I said as a personal attack.
Your recap of the situation Lance referred to in his article was refreshingly unbiased, and in looking at both your site and your comments here, it’s clear that you have a lot of passion about social media. I don’t doubt for a second your commitment to educating people about how to use it more effectively.
That said, I do stand by my original comment that social media is not as complicated as social media “experts” make it seem. Are there some clear instances of bone-headed behavior that have come back to haunt organizations using social media? Of course!
I’m not sure how much of that is a lack of awareness about social media, and how much of it is just bad organizational culture, though.
I think you’re right – you and I would agree far more than disagree. But I feel compelled to continually remind HR pros that these tools aren’t difficult – but they do take work. Simple and easy are not necessarily synonyms.
Again, my apologies. Thanks for all of your work in this space!
Chris
August 9, 2010 at 11:41 am
No problem, Chris. We may have (slightly) different ideas about how to achieve them, but ultimately we share the same goals. Keep on fightin’ the good fight.
August 9, 2010 at 7:26 pm
About empathy, I agree with those who say it is important to consider how you would feel if you were in the place of the person you criticize. And even then, take it a step further and do not assume that individual has an ego of steel and can withstand all the criticism you might wish to heap upon them. Just because you think it or feel it doesn’t mean you need to share it.
Pingback: What Happened To Lance’s Posts? | Rehaul by Lance Haun
Pingback: 56 Most Popular Job Search Blog Posts of 2010 | JobMob
September 6, 2011 at 7:36 am
My own opinion is that this is the society we now live in. We can’t have it both ways. Twitter is used more and more to gauge feedback from events and presentations therefore we have to accept that sometimes this will negative as well as positive.
Pingback: Twitter Bullying « SilkRoad Talent Management Blog for Human Resource Professionals