Back in September I wrote about Twitter conference hijacking, which is made possible by intensified attendee tweeting during conferences - par for the course these days. This Twitter “backchannel” allows participants to engage in silent, realtime commentary via the power of the hashtag. It’s the voice of the people, responding to the voice on the podium. Most people, including myself, enjoy it - it’s social comparison, groupthink and the inside scoop all rolled into one. At the Gilbane conference, I had a great time following and contributing to the #gilbane Twitterstream. But it’s not all roses.
Today, Joseph Thornley (CEO of Thornley Fallis in Ottawa) blogged about a speaker who took offense to the Twitterstream that erupted during his talk at a recent event. It seems this particular speaker was making some controversial claims that caused disagreement among audience members, who hashed it out on Twitter. Unfortunately, being on the podium at the time, the speaker was unable to follow the tweets and defend himself or argue his points. An angry email ensued, and so did a fascinating discussion.
I encourage you to read the blog post I referenced above, and especially the comments. Some of them were really eye-opening for me. I’ve quickly summarized some new pros and cons that caught my eye about tweeting during conferences… not absolute, but definitely food for thought.
Pros
- Benefit from others’ perspectives - speech itself + Twitterstream combined offer maximum value
- Allows others to tune in to the conference buzz - from a different session or from across the country
- Enables impromptu meetups, tweetups and recommendations
- Brings a sense of community to the conference
- A great way to meet new people (or at least find new people to follow in your industry)
- Allows the speaker to retroactively benefit from honest, spontaneous feedback
Cons
- If everyone is busy tweeting, it might detract from real interpersonal interaction between panelists and audience members. More importantly, it is disrespectful not to give the speaker - who has spent time and energy preparing - your full attention
- Tweets do not (cannot?) convey context and are always written with the Tweeter’s bias
- Commenting negatively on Twitter but not taking advantage of a natural discussion forum (a conference session) is a waste of a great opportunity for debate
- Unlike blog comment conversations, Twitter conversations are ephemeral and spontaneous. Linking tweets to later rebuttals is difficult even with a hashtag - Twitter is not a good platform for threaded conversations
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Joseph Thornley 12.09.08 at 8:27 am
Amanda, Thanks for the thoughtful post. Your pros and cons are a valuable resource that I’ve tagged “TwitterConference” on delicious.com for future reference.
I’d differ on one point. Your first con suggests that Twitters are are paying less than complete attention to the speaker. In fact, when I twitter at a conference, I am paying much closer attention. I’m trying to follow what the speaker is saying and distill the essential. In that way, I’m actively engaged with her content, not simply passively receiving it. In a way, it’s like a return to my university days when I took copious notes of what my lecturer was saying. Only now, I can share and discuss them with anyone who shares my interest.
Mike Spear 12.09.08 at 11:55 am
Nice summary Amanda and thanks for taking the time.
While some multi-taskers might feel able to tweet away during an entire presentation while still taking it all in, grasping the nuances, and not missing any points at all, I think some sober second thought on live posting is a good idea.
To see a host of laptops flip up and people beavering away on a keyboard while someone is making a presentation immediately creates a competition going on for eyes and ears. No way around it.
If the only thing going on was Twittering the salient points maybe there is a strong case to be made, but if we’re honest we all know there is much more going on.
First off we’re not just putting out the main points. We’re actually engaged in further discussions, sometimes 2 or 3 of them, while the speaker is making his or her points. That means no one online or on the podium gets anyone’s full attention. Are multiple shallow conversations preferable to one deeper and well thought out one ?
Once the laptop is powered up and connected we’re also open to e-mails, Facebook status updates, RSS feeds, and our own blog entries. Outlook remains open, there is more than the Twitter tab open on IE, and let’s not forget the cell phone either vibrating or flashing up SMS and e-mails.
Registration for that conference was not cheap and I wonder if being engaged in several activities and discussions at once is really enhancing the ROI for the paying participants.
Amanda 12.09.08 at 8:46 pm
Joseph and Mike - thanks for your comments.
It’s a tough one. I love the value and engagement tweeting brings to the conference experience, but I have to agree with Mike that it’s all too easy to miss an important point while you’re tweeting about the last one. Also, at Gilbane I was discouraged to see much of the audience engrossed in their laptop/Blackberry during every session - though likely not all with Twitter.
The brain can only do one thing at a time. Does a happy medium exist? Perhaps it is a matter of self-discipline to tweet briefly and efficiently while remaining engaged with the speaker - much like taking lecture notes, which solidifies points in your head as Joseph mentioned. And then to respond to the twitterstream once the speech has finished?
It will be interesting to see how this evolves. A colleague pointed out that Dion Hinchcliffe has engaged the conference backchannel during his keynote in Rotterdam today - using Google Moderator. While this will likely lack Twitter’s candor and spontaneity, it adds another interesting dimension.