11 replies to this topic

[cre8pc]

One of the biggest secrets surrounding SEM conferences has to do with who is paid to speak, who is not paid to speak and what, if any, of their expenses are reimbursed.

It's a topic that's whispered about and at times, when I've asked some of my friends if they're paid, they clam up.

Today, in Twitter, a discussion broke out between Rae (SugarRae) and Danny Sullivan on this topic. She was surprised to learn some speakers at SMX or SES get compensated in some ways. She's been a speaker many times and always paid her travel, food, and hotel.

All speakers and the press (live bloggers too) get in to the sessions for free.

I spent over $5000 of my own money last year to "live blog" at conferences. I can only imagine the out of pocket expenses of those who speak on a regular basis, and go to SES or SMX around the world.

Not to mention, a company like Christine Churchill's Key Relevance (as an example. There are a lot.) that send several speakers to these conferences.

So the question is, are any of them being compensated to help offset the financial load?

Danny says "yes", some are. It "depends" on the kind of business and whether or not they get new clients by speaking. That confused me. Why would anyone shell out that gigantic expense and not expect to pick up some new business?

Some people are leaving SES and SMX to speak at other conferences that DO pay their speakers. This drains the speaker pool for SES and SMX but opens the door to newcomers and a new generation. Nothing wrong with that.

Michael Gray, a very popular speaker, was not "invited" to come back to SES NY this year. He wonders why. He also questions sponsored sessions, where companies PAY the conference organizers for the right to host a 45 minute session on a topic related to their business or service, with their people.

He brings it up in this Sphinn thread (Actual article - here but he has comments closed.

The discussion touches on a few things and was even "Desphunn".

I hate seeing us lose experienced speakers and those who aren't afraid to challenge, educate and explore. Can sponsored sessions do that or do you think they come with a bias by the presenter/speakers?

[joedolson]

Sponsored sessions: I think that a few sponsored sessions can sometimes be just part of doing the conference business. The problem with what SES NY seems to have done is that they've created a single conference speaking session where you have only two choices: go to a sponsored session or go to nothing. I think that's rather questionable...

I do feel that speakers who are sponsored by their company are inherently biased. Whether it's explicit or not, there will be a bias.

And whether SEM speakers should be compensated....OOOH>>>big dark secret questions.

Honestly, I feel that yes, some speakers should be compensated. I think it's entirely reasonable that speakers are treated differently depending on their particular expertise, their popularity, and the likelihood they will benefit from speaking financially. An unproven speaker who stands to gain significant reputation and/or direct business from the experience: I wouldn't be inclined to pay them. A proven speaker whose company is well established, who is highly desirable, and may be personally responsible for some people's decisions whether or not to come to the conference? This is a highly desirable speaker, and probably deserves some kind of recompense for their time. Afterall, otherwise they may just not choose to come.

This may not be a popular position to take: after all, whether speakers benefit financially from their speaking is really nobody's business but their own. However, it's a very realistic concern that big-name speakers act as a draw for people to attend the conference and unknown speakers don't. (I'm not passing any judgements on who is or should be concerned a "big name", however.)

[DonnaFontenot]

I'm not completely sure what I think is best. Frankly, part of me has always believed that speakers should be comp'd (at least enough to cover expenses). On the other hand, I can see how doing so might lead to "sales-y" presentations, rather than good, meaty info. I'd think though, that there could be rules in place to handle that.

I definitely don't think there should be some that get paid and some that don't. That's just asking for trouble, imo.

I guess if a speaker gets enough business generated from the presentation, that alone covers the costs. Are there speakers that don't solicit business, because they don't generally take on clients? (Thinking of myself here, and assuming there must be others like that). If so, then speaking at conferences could get mighty expensive, mighty quick.

Those are just some of my thoughts. Again, I'm not quite sure exactly what to think.

[EGOL]

I go to these conferences to learn how to do things but it seems that I get more sales pitches than lessons. I would attend more of them if the amount of beef were increased.

My input on this is... if a person is being paid it better not be a sales pitch instead of a lesson. If they are not being paid they still better give a huge valuable lesson if they hope to speak again. I spend a lot of dough to attend these things and I can get the sales pitch on the phone for free - without the lost time and expense of flying across the continent. So, if they need to pay speakers to get lessons instead of sales pitches that's fine. Just add the expense to the admission fee, because the incremental increase would probably be small and the extra value added might be huge.

[joedolson]

I'm not completely sure what I think is best. Frankly, part of me has always believed that speakers should be comp'd (at least enough to cover expenses). On the other hand, I can see how doing so might lead to "sales-y" presentations, rather than good, meaty info.

I think that being paid by your employer could lead to "sales-y" presentations; but I don't see any reason that being paid by the conference itself should lead to anything like that. The conference should be out to get the best presenters they can find: if anything, I'd imagine that being paid by the conference would work to their advantage, by decreasing the likelihood of a presenter being sales-oriented in their speech.

[cre8pc]

I admit to being surprised at the reaction to my comments at Sphinn. If I'm reading it right, the majority have no problem with sponsored sessions.

Besides Michael Gray not being asked to return to speak for SES, Rand says the entire staff of SEOMoz has also been turned away.

[iamlost]

Let's be really clear about one thing: in the 'webmaster' convention arena the main events are all 'for profit'. They are a primary revenue stream of the producing companies. Just as the fora, and other SM creations are a primary marketing model. This is neither good or bad, it simply is.

That certain speakers are fully/partially compensated, i.e. free attendance, free accommodation, free travel, etc. is not a new reality. It has been acknowledged for years. Heck, just look at the pricing variation: full price, major discount by date, minor discount by later date, special affiliate discounts, etc. Some people pay full price or work for recognition, others get in free or are paid an honourarium and expenses.

How to judge the value of a given gathering or session, whether to submit a presentation proposal or not, is up to you. While I have never attended one (webmaster convention) I do read some of the marketing and the commentary. There is little, if anything, that appears to be 'hidden'.

So, recently, a prominent individual and another company were not accepted as speakers. So? There is no 'right' to speak at someone else's event. If what is being said is, 'the only value in this event is my presentation/speaking, i.e. marketing wonderful me' either that person/company or the event itself has a problem. Which is more likely?

An event went with 'paid for' presentation slots. So? One of two things will happen: (1) audience size/response will make the format uneconomic, or (2) it becomes an accepted 'value' format revenue stream.

Something either has sufficient value for you or it does not. Go if it does, don't if it doesn't.

[Ruud]

Today, in Twitter, a discussion broke out between Rae (SugarRae) and Danny Sullivan on this topic. She was surprised to learn some speakers at SMX or SES get compensated in some ways. She's been a speaker many times and always paid her travel, food, and hotel

Given that she's not there to pick up new business (her statement on Twitter) I find that really, really giving.

I recognize too that speaking at a conference can help establish or maintain your stature in an industry.

Should either, giving back or stature, be a reason not to pay a speaker?

Depends.

If the conference is non-profit, no-one should be paid. If the conference is for profit I don't see why anyone would speak for free...

So the question is, are any of them being compensated to help offset the financial load?

See above.

What should be offset, and is besides this thread, I recognize that, is the cost for attending itself. It's a lot of money to go (travel) and stay (accomodation). Anyway, different story...

As for sponsored sessions: the fact that they're sponsored doesn't make them lose value right then and there. It's entirely possible, in my idea, that they can be interesting.

Buttah.... if there's money coming in that way I would think speakers should be asking "so OK, who's getting that money?"

[cre8pc]

These issues really concern me because I think how these conferences are handled and presented reflects on the entire industry.

Fact is, we ARE losing some popular speakers who have been invited by related industries and shows to speak there, not SMX or SES. If the conference schedule conflicts, and they have a choice between one that will pay their expenses and one that doesn't, I'm sure many will chose the one that will pay and introduce them to a whole new target audience (and hence, new readers, customers, clients, students, etc.)

I also feel that we're missing out on potential talent and knowledge share. I absolutely can't afford the travel expenses to these big conferences. To "live blog" and pay my way last year meant certain personal sacrifices. When I re-evaluated my choices this year, I decided that I was needed elsewhere. Home. I can't pay for my daughter's college (or part of it) and be volunteering to "live blog".

I would, however, speak or "live blog" in exchange for money because it would help me help her.

I think many of us who are sole proprietors who work double/triple duty to keep our businesses going on our own are left out of the speaker pool because we simply can't afford to go. It doesn't make us any less "expert". I know I could teach but I try to be satisfied with outlets I can afford.

It's important to note that getting into sessions for free as a volunteer "live blogger" was an enormous opportunity that I still marvel at. I feel so lucky to have done it and I was thrilled to work hard for all the education I received while covering the sessions.

I just feel that somewhere in the whirlwind of business decisions to generate revenue by accepting sponsored sessions, and paying or not paying speakers, these conferences risk missing out on getting to know people who don't work for large companies.

[DrPete]

My former company was a software/service provider for tradeshows, and I think it's important to point out that this situation isn't unique to SEM conferences. Some conferences pay speakers, some don't, and a lot of that depends on the industry, budgets, etc. Most that do pay speakers only pay the keynotes or "top tier" speakers, however you choose to define that.

It's natural to have some competition between shows: at the end of the day, tradeshows are businesses. It's also natural for speakers to start to get an inflated sense of their worth and demand premium fees. Sometimes, it's best to let those speakers go to another show and bring in some new blood, IMO. Although we have every right to be upset about it, we should also cut folks like Danny a little slack. Managing the competing demands of speakers, exhibitors, attendees, and sponsors isn't easy, to say the least.

I also don't think that sponsorship necessarily sets whether a presentation is "salesy". Often, it comes down to whether it's an individual or a vendor representative. I used to talk on panel discussions with other vendors. We weren't compensated, but invariably most of the other panelists would sit and demo their product (while I tended toward the educational approach and soft sell). Sponsored sessions sometimes just mean a few extra signs and a brief thank-you to the sponsor, but then the actual content depends entirely on the speaker.

At any rate, it's a tough balance, and there's going to be ebb and flow as the industry grows and the whole SES, SMX, etc. thing works itself out. I'd just point out that this isn't unique to SEM, and it'll sort itself out eventually.

[IncrediBILL]

This conversation is a little bit like comparing salaries in a company and wondering why Bob makes $10K more than Ken does and all the sour grapes that come with it because it never results in anyone being happy about their status quo.

1. Maybe the other speaker simply asked to be compensated, you never know unless you ask.

2. It could be the difference of speakers that are asked to speak vs. those that beg to speak. Why would you compensate someone begging to speak?

3. Maybe the other speaker was simply a bigger draw because I'm inclined to think the big names used to fill up the 600 seat rooms are more likely compensated than the speakers in the 200 seat rooms.

4. Perhaps the speaker is always a paid speaker and is known only to speak for a fee so getting that speaker always costs something.

I personally draw the line at conferences that ask me to speak but don't offer access to the conference for free. Not likely I'd even be going to the conference in the first place if it wasn't a perk.

The bottom line is do you get enough out of attending the conference, networking and gaining clients to agree to speak, and if the answer is NO, then why bother?

I'll tell you why bother, it's added credibility.

Even if you get zero clients from the conference it helps build your credibility when prospective clients come to your website and see you've spoken here and there, year after year, so you must know what you're doing to be considered an expert in your field.

Edited by IncrediBILL, 06 March 2008 - 08:38 PM.

[Black_Knight]

The bottom line is do you get enough out of attending the conference, networking and gaining clients to agree to speak, and if the answer is NO, then why bother?

Precisely why I have never been able to justify turning away paid work to attend any of the US based majority of the SES/SMX conferences. For the trip to be worthwhile, since it doesn't pay, and is unlikely to draw any work I'm going to accept that I'm not already in negotiation for, the only possible motive is to socialise, and if I'm going to cross the Atlantic for that I want to spend a few weeks catching up with all the people over the years that made me promise I'd look them up if I ever flew over.

Now I used to make a lot of effort the first couple of times for SES London, but you know what? It never paid a dime in any way that would justify itself as business activity. The networking was fun, and even useful, but even that never really lead directly to even one small job.

So, at the end of the day, something like SES has to be considered as me taking time off work for personal stuff. Even as a speaker I see it as doing a favour for an industry friend, or a bit of charity work for my industry, and not in any way as business. I don't think I'm unique in that, and I do think that it has an impact on the quality of presentations made at SES.

These conferences only reward sales pitches or those desperate for some limelight and credibility for the unpaid majority. I know that if I were paid to be speaking I'd be treating it much more seriously, and providing more detailed information than I did. End result: people paying for the conference are NOT getting the full value of most of the speakers, in my experience.

On the other hand, as a business, which is what SES is, not a charitabe event for the industry, there is an endless supply of speakers only too happy to appear, and paying only a very few names - the ones who tour everywhere with the show and are an integral part of it - means the overheads are low and the profit margins are much juicier. It is good enough to make people pay out the big bucks to attend, so why fix what ain't broke?

Pride in one's product is rarely compatible with todays business ethos of maximising ROI.