Fantastic panels today. I’ll have notes on teen marketing, alternate reality games and Henry Jenkins soon. I had to get a quick post up about the social media metrics panel.
First, some quick background: I participated in a Traditional/New Media panel in Minneapolis a couple weeks ago, live-blogging for Metroblogging Minneapolis. In addition, while the speakers spoke “at” the audience, a few were liveblogging the event and many others were using Twitter to form a social media backchannel.
Following the forum, there was all sorts of dust-up following the panel — mostly caused by unrealized expectations set by the panel’s topic, the format in how the speakers interacted with the audience, and the availability and use of digital backchannels for those of us in the audience to communicate, collaborate and share our opinion — and the reaction of those not in the world of digital backchannels.
At today’s SXSW 5 p.m. panel, Social Marketing Strategies Metrics, Where Are They?, most of us in the crowd felt like the moderator’s questions were geared toward an elementary audience and answers from panelists were vague and philosophical not exactly quantitative answers for a discussion about metrics.
Attendees flocked to the official Meebo Livechat page and Twitter to vent their frustration. What they found there was lots of likeminded people coming to the same conclusion. Finally, after 30 minutes and still no sign of talking about measurable results, someone did speak up. His comment basically said many of those in the room were dissatisfied with the panelists and discussion so far, but he was quickly dismissed by the moderator, “I have a couple questions left, then we’ll get to your questions. We have 30 minutes left.”
Because of the formal backchannel on Meebo, participants were able to vet their feelings (often angst) at being disrespected. You don’t disrepect geeks, people. A panel on metrics not addressing metrics was indeed depressing. For the record, I wasn’t part of this — just watching from afar.
On Meebo, christine wrote, “don’t tell me that there are metrics, tell me what they ARE, how to measure them, what the benchmarks are.”
Charlie Byrne wrote, “If I was ever a speaker, I would want an assistant monitoring Meebo and talking to me via earpiece so I would know what the audience was thinking. (well maybe anyway). “Keep going, they like this topic” or “You are losing them…”
At one point, avenger (I think Henry Copeland) wrote, “ok, i’m taking off my sweater,” and he threw it, hitting me.
Then he wrote, “ok, all together now… let’s raise our hands on the count of …. three,” and people really did raise their hands all across the room. The reporter from the local Austin newspaper looked shocked.
Then it got out of hand, something the folks over at the Social Network Coups panel probably could have seen coming. Suddenly literally l/10th of the room started coughing intermittently…for the rest of the panel.
It was an amazing collaboration by a group given the tools, like-mindedness and opportunity.
I see so many similar veins in this example to my social media panel a few weeks ago. I think Ed Kohler put it best regarding that situation in his post on Twitter’s Influence on Real-World Forums:
“I see this as a simple clash of cultures. The Twitter users were simply doing what they do all day long every day through their blogs, Facebook status, IM messages and IM status, and - from time to time - in the real world. Suddenly, the topic of conversation turned to, obviously, the topic at hand….
Clearly, 50 people cannot all ask even one question each in a public forum lasting 90 minutes, much less receive thoughtful responses from others. But 50 people could each share their thoughts as they happen with whomever finds them important (subscribes to their Tweets or Tweets on a topic) and receive real-time responses from people they find interesting…
I’m sure many of the non-Twitter using mainstream media members in attendance leaned over to whomever they happened to be sitting next to and shared a spontaneous thought or two during the event. That’s great, but it’s constricted to the handful of people you happened to sit down next to who may or may not be interested in hearing your take at that exact moment. Scaling your thoughts beyond whisper range makes things much more interesting.”
Totally applies to this case.
For the record, coincidentally, I got a lot out of the information the panelists presented. But my expectations (based on the topic title) were also not met. (cough)
"Hands In Dirty Ground"
Buy at 
Buy at 
Buy at 
18 responses so far ↓
1 mark // Mar 9, 2008 at 7:33 am
Wish I hit that soc-net metrics panel I am moderating one at media summit on wed,
and just launched a free and open partial
solution to try and gleam some intel from
all the information at trendrr.com - would love more input on whats wanted from anyone who is interested.
2 Ed Kohler // Mar 9, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Interesting turn of events. Why not just walk out if things turn out to be crappy? I imagine some people were still getting some value out of the presentation (whether it was what they were expecting or not going in), so why interrupt things?
3 SXSW Interactive Day 3: Mark Zuckerberg, Sarah Lacy vs. Backchanneled geeks // Mar 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm
[…] RSS ← SXSW Interactive Day 2: Audience Revolt at the Metrics Panel […]
4 Robert Collins // Mar 11, 2008 at 9:18 am
Alas, sxsw seems to have the latest nexus of the grand social media experiment - where the ‘pundits and experts’ still don’t seem to understand the new dynamics when 2.0 influencers gather in real-world events.
The number one rule in any forum is know your audience - and in the land of immediacy with live twittering - moderators need to take into account the reaction of their audience - real and virtual. Sometimes, going off the script can be the most genuine and respectful thing you can do - when your audience wants your talk to take a different direction.
As is too often the case - too many people are talking and not truly listening.
If you can see - look.
If you can look - observe.
If you can observe - react.
5 Audience of Twittering Assholes « Scobleizer — Tech geek blogger // Mar 11, 2008 at 9:26 am
[…] 8. This wasn’t the only audience revolt at SXSW this year. […]
6 Heath Row // Mar 11, 2008 at 9:51 am
I was at this panel, and while I wasn’t plugged into the back channel — I was rocking the Moleskine — I wondered whether that cough outbreak was orchestrated. I, too, wish they’d talked more about measurement and metrics.
7 Corvida // Mar 11, 2008 at 11:18 am
Childish antics, but at least it got the point across and is definitely funny.
8 Power is Shifting | Sui Generis // Mar 11, 2008 at 1:16 pm
[…] And apparently, there’s been another revolt in SXSW. […]
9 What a Long, Strange Trip SXSW’s been! « Dani Pennsylvania // Mar 11, 2008 at 8:07 pm
[…] Witnessing the audience revolt at one of the many metrics sessions I attended. Check out Greg’s recap - it’s a great summary - and he is really cool. […]
10 Media Driving with Jay Moonah » Post Topic » Should SXSW go Unconference? // Mar 12, 2008 at 7:24 am
[…] Like many other media geeks, I’ve been observing the events of the SXSW festival from affair via Twitter tweats, Qik video streams, blogs and traditional media coverage. So far, at least two major sessions (Sarah Lacy’s interview of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and the Social Marketing Strategies Metrics panel) have fallen pray to audience revolt. By all accounts, in both cases back channel chat rooms and Twitter helped accelerate the dissatisfaction. […]
11 Prentiss Riddle // Mar 12, 2008 at 9:30 am
Sounds like the panelists were doing the audience a disservice and deserved what they got, but I hope there emerge better protocols for audience feedback than earpieces or mass confrontations.
Most of the panelists at SXSW are experts (or simply enthusiasts) on their topics and not professional newscasters or TV emcees. This is as it should be. It’s cognitively a great deal to ask of amateur speakers that they pay attention to their planned talk, their co-panelists, the people who formally ask questions at the microphone, and (if we’re lucky) the visible and audible reactions of the audience. To add an earpiece to the mix or ask speakers to monitor a chat channel as they talk would make most speakers do worse, not better.
A traditional way to handle audience response is to have audience members write questions on cards and have a moderator select among them. Usually this is used to stifle the audience (i.e., so they won’t ask tough questions) but in digital form it can be used to manage volume rather than content. I’ve heard of this method being adapted in both hybrid Second-Life/real-life conferences and in radio talk shows so there’s a panel participant designated to report questions and comments that emerge from audience chatter.
Maybe it would be worth some formal experiments in this vein at next year’s SXSW?
12 emily // Mar 12, 2008 at 11:18 am
In addition to this panel and the infamous Zuckerberg interview, there was a surprising amount of audience pushback at this year’s SXSW, including respectful but strong disagreement in the “Are Logos Irrelevant?” panel, and a giant sucking whoosh of disappointment in the “Design Eye” panel. The larger message SXSW organizers need to take away from this? Your audience is made up of very smart people. Time to try harder.
13 Porridge // Mar 12, 2008 at 12:32 pm
There was significant audience tension and contempt in the “How Piracy Will Save the Music Industry” panel yesterday, with 10 questioners in a row ripping into the panelist from Media Defender. The Meebo chat room was empty and only @davedelaney and I were tweeting from the room. Audience members were straight up talking to each other all across the room and the last questioner brought his laptop up to the mic to play an audio file that said “Shut the F*ck Up.” I’m working on a post about it.
14 Michael E. Rubin // Mar 12, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Emily,
I totally (but respectfully) disagree. The message is not “Time to try harder.” The message is “How do we provide appropriate avenues for pushback?”
Orhcestrated coughs and heckling is rude. Plain and simple. I wrote a post about this at MarketingProfs this morning. It was inspired in part by this post. I’d be honored if you’d read it, but here’s the gist of it: When did being rude become cute? http://tinyurl.com/3bgsef
I make my living in part by putting on these kind of events. And yep, that includes panels on metrics and ROI. The dirty little secret? THEY ARE BORING. Metrics and ROI is an enormously boring topic. The experts are not professional speakers — they are largely numbers geeks who are some of the most brilliant people you’ll be privileged to meet. To stand there and heckle because the panel doesn’t meet your expectations is insulting. Where were the conference reps from the SXSW organization? They — or the moderator — should have stepped in immediately and asked people to be a bit more respectful … or walk out.
It’s really that simple.
Cheers,
Michael
_______
Michael E. Rubin — GasPedal/Blog Council
Call me: 312-932-9000
Email me: michael@gaspedal.com
Tweet me: http://twitter.com/merubin
See a platypus: http://tinyurl.com/2mtycl
15 emily // Mar 13, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Michael,
My point was simply that this recurring theme of audience dissatisfaction should not be ignored. I never meant to condone behavior such as coughing in unison — that is rude and silly. I agree that pushback must be civil, and mostly it was.
The “Are Logos Irrelevant?” panel, for example, was a model of appropriate pushback: audience members lined up at the mike and presented *brief* and *logical* evidence that the panelists had failed to make the case for their provocative premise. In the “Design Eye” panel, there was very little audible pushback (in fact one Q&A participant who tried to stir things up was promptly hushed by the rest of the room) — but the sudden disappointment during the “reveal” was like a blanket descending on the room, and it threw off the presenters who were expecting whoops of applause. Herasimchuk’s response was not to a belligerent audience member but to someone who had waited in line to ask the perfectly reasonable question of how their navigation-challenged sample pages could be integrated into the larger site.
Yes, conference speakers can be boring. There were some of those at SXSW, too, and people walked out on them quietly. But when speakers are ill-prepared, arrogant, or deceptive, the question is no longer how to provide avenues for feedback, but how to make sure that people do not become angry at the perceived theft of their time and money.
16 When Did We All Become Eagles Fans? » The Buzz Bin // Mar 14, 2008 at 7:31 am
[…] Arrington dubbed it a "witch burning." A similar hijacking behavior pattern broke out at the metrics panel. And it’s hard not to think of last winter’s Gizmodo hijacking incident at CES. […]
17 Dear Sleazeball Politicians, We’re Taking Back Control of OUR Country, Like We’ve Been Taking Control of Our Spaces | Apokalypse Software Corp. // Mar 14, 2008 at 4:57 pm
[…] And we’re taking charge again, as you can see. […]
18 Tony Thomas » Amazon.com Announces TextBuyIt // Apr 3, 2008 at 5:20 am
[…] I never fully realized the appeal of this instantaneous communication until this year’s SXSW Interactive conference. I was following someone from Minnesota who was there and witnessed the takeover of a panel that was facilitated by backchannels created in Twitter and Meebo. I didn’t get a detailed account, but sitting in my office in Minneapolis, I was privy to something very interesting occurring in Austin, TX. I’ll be very surprised if I don’t read about it in Wired next month. […]
Leave a Comment