Are Your Conference Speakers Teaching or Selling?

by Timothy B. Corcoran on May 18, 2010

Facebook Twitter Email Linkedin Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon

Raise your hand if you’ve attended a panel discussion at a conference and one of the speakers sounds suspiciously like he’s selling a product or service rather than educating the audience about the panel topic.  Judging by all the raised hands, it’s nearly unanimous that we’ve all been insulted (or is it assaulted?!) in this way.  This is a topic with which I have close  familiarity from a variety of perspectives and so I was interested to read the post at Sharon Nelson’s “Ride the Lightning” electronic evidence blog (HT to @ronfriedmann for pointing it out) debating the pros and cons of allowing vendors to purchase conference speaking slots.

The debate is a familiar one:  should legal conference panels be comprised solely of neutral parties such as academic types and buyers and users of legal services?  And if we allow vendors and sponsors and consultants to participate, parties who may have some commercial interest in promoting their products (or themselves), will this erode the quality of the content and turn the panel into a one-sided affair, or worse, a long infomercial?  Does the risk of commercialization increase when the vendors are also financial sponsors of the conference?

I’ve spent years managing sales teams or leading businesses that invested heavily in consumer education as part of the process of selling our products and services.  This meant that my team sponsored conferences or conference sessions and, yes, I’ve spoken on many panels which I had also sponsored.  I also led the business development function at a global law firm where I was considered a trusted insider and so I was asked to join conference panels to provide the buyer’s or user’s perspective on numerous topics.  I’m now a legal management consultant who’s asked to speak regularly on conference panels as an independent observer debating issues of the day in our beloved legal profession.  Amusingly, on more than a few occasions, statements I’ve uttered as a consultant or as a law firm insider were deemed more credible and unbiased than the exact same statements I’ve made as a vendor.  Perhaps some audience members hear what they want to hear?

In fairness, I’ve had vendor colleagues who perceived any opportunity speak on a panel as an opportunity to pitch their product.  This type of behavior ruins it for the rest of us, and it usually stems from one of two sources:  the vendor representative is just that, a vendor rep, who knows little about the market dynamics beyond the features and functions of her particular product and therefore is in no position to offer consumer education on broader issues; or the vendor does such a poor job of consultative (a.k.a. “needs based”) selling that he believes he gets one chance to pitch his wares, and as a result behaves in such a way as to make this a self-fulfilling belief.  I’ve written about the need for vendors to become part of the market they serve, to participate in the community alongside their clients, competitors and colleagues.  Sadly, many view their vendor role as a day job and when their sales call or booth shift is over, they want to do anything but spend time in their marketplace.

In Sharon’s post she shares the inside scoop from a conference organizer who is incensed at the arrogance of vendors who try to buy selling time at the podium.  But conference organizers aren’t without sin in this debate either.  One challenge with conference committees is that there is often little continuity from year to year.  On two separate occasions in my career my panel was rated the highest of all panels at the conference.  The following year, neither conference committee would take the time to even consider a follow-up session, a 201-level course, if you will.  In a more recent example, the new conference planners retained by a national legal organization specifically prohibited all but the most prominent consultants and vendors from participation in the educational panels, out of some apparent misguided sense that users and buyers are the only credible sources for peer education.  Does anyone really think that a neutral consultant, or an objective, education-oriented vendor, either of whom has spent time in dozens or even hundreds of firms, can’t shed additional light on a topic as compared to a user who, almost by definition, has experience at just one firm?  Conference organizers, and in particular conference programming committees, tend to want to leave their mark, which often manifests itself in finding new speakers and not relying on prior speakers… regardless of how well they were received.  Eliminating all past speakers, and eliminating all but the buyers, are dumb ideas, but no more dumb than lazily inviting the same speakers year after year.

The moral of the story is that there are few hard and fast rules which apply when organizing conferences.  I should know, I’ve been the conference chair of a national legal industry conference, and I and my teams have organized (not sponsored, but ran) many dozens of conferences.  We often invited industry experts, some of them vendors, sometimes even competitors, to participate on panel discussions in order to present compelling educational programming.  However, we checked references of potential speakers — starting with evaluations from prior speaking engagements and on multiple occasions polling past attendees to assess a speaker’s propensity to sell from the podium.  The vendors who sell rather than educate are usually well-known.  Those who offer new, insightful, relevant contributions year after year should not be constrained because some poorly-trained hack in the same field conducted a product demo in lieu of a didactic approach.

I understand the emotion behind the pay to play debate.  But it’s not the fact that a vendor sponsors a panel, or the fact that a panelist derives an income from selling products or services to audience members, that causes the problem.  After all, I’ve wasted as much time listening to biased users who, for example, resolutely believe their firm’s technology implementation is perfect for everyone else on the planet, as I have listening to vendors pitch their wares.  The key is to discard prejudices and evaluate each speaker on his or her own merits.  And let’s not be afraid to discard a panelist — even after the program guide is published — if during the rehearsals a panelist is incapable of educating rather than selling.  Do this a few times and the word will get around to the community:  send your best or don’t send anyone at all.

As for me, my past teams often accused me of not once mentioning my company or my products. One colleague remarked dryly, “Tim, I don’t think anyone would be offended if you thought to mention our company name, or mentioned that our company offers products that help users address the business issues you were discussing.”  Of course, at one conference, immediately after the panel chair introduced me, an audience member stood up and  exclaimed, “I’ll learn nothing from a vendor trying to sell me something!” and then he stormed out… before I had even said a word.  And I’m the one accused of having a bias?

Print Friendly

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Gerry Oginski May 18, 2010 at 6:06 pm

As a medical malpractice trial lawyer and also as the founder of the lawyer’s video studio, I’ve been to conferences that have been both educational only, and ones that mixed selling from the podium with educational messages.

It should be recognized that there are basically two different types of conferences. There are required CLE conferences where you expect the lecturers to give new and up-to-date legal information about their area of expertise. It is unlikely that you expect to see any type of selling from the podium during a CLE lecture.

On the other hand, there are seminars and conferences that discuss legal marketing, legal management, legal technology where the vendors may be the leaders in their particular field. In those seminars, you almost expect to hear updates in what is new from these vendors and for them to pitch their goods and services.

If an attorney goes to one of these marketing or technology seminars you can virtually expect that many of the presenters will be pitching their particular product. For an attorney to be surprised or shocked that they are being pitched to during one of these seminars seems unrealistic.

As a solo practitioner, tries to keep up with the latest in legal marketing, I want to know what works and importantly what doesn’t. If there’s a new product or service on the market that is going to help me manage my practice and make my life simpler, and I want to know about it and I want to know how it can improve my life.

When I go to a CLE seminar, I know the attorneys are not there trying to openly pitch to get me to refer cases to them, although it is always implied.

Clearly, if you’re going to an educational and informational seminar, you will be shocked and surprised if the speaker begins their informational pitch. Most people spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to travel to a central location and they don’t want to be bombarded with another product that they didn’t ask to learn about.

On the other hand, if the speaker has useful information that can simplify the way I market my practice, I want to know how much their service costs to see if it fits within my marketing budget and is right for me and my firm.

Selling from the podium works for both the attendees and the speaker; especially when the attendees know before hand and expect some type of selling to occur. Lawyers need to pay attention to what type of seminar they are attending and have realistic expectations about whether this is solely informational whether vendors have useful information about their products and services.

Ted Banks May 18, 2010 at 5:27 pm

Consultants or vendors should never be
Automatically excluded from a program
Since they may be the experts and
The best presenters on a subject.
Conference organizers, even if,
Accepting sponsorships should prohibit
Selling from the podium. People should
Realize that it is not effective. The atttendees did not sign up to watch an infomercial. Vendors should realize that the conference appearance is the chance to impress the audience with their expertise, and demonstrate how easy to work with. Show, don’t tell.

Chad Schmidt May 18, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Good post. The issues around this topic drive me crazy. Events and speaking slots are such lucrative endeavors (in the legal industry especially) that I don’t see it ending anytime soon, unfortunately. I know at least three companies (not law firms – that’s another story) that have budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for these ‘opportunities.’

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: