Twitter Brings Interaction to Events

In a couple of weeks, I will attend the most tweeted conference by far - SxSWi. If I'm not mistaken, it was this event that took down Twitter last year. Just thinking about it is almost slowing my browser to a crawl.

These days we're all so used to interaction, that the idea of reading a Web site passively or just sitting in a presentation makes us feel disconnected. Yes, the content you produce is increasingly more distributed.

If you "like " something on FriendFeed, or if you share it on our reader, you're probably not going to comment at that post. Your act of sharing was the comment. Some content creators initiate new threads as questions on LinkedIn or directly as a post on other social networks.

That's where Twitter comes in handy. The immediacy, the ability to share with your network, and the fact that this is a presence tool are very compelling reasons why the people attending your session or panel at the next event might be sharing their reactions to your content live.

How you feel about that has little influence over it happening while you speak. This is the same adage we've been telling companies about their brands being discussed online. What you can affect, is the way you handle the real time feedback. How you respond, and, to the extent possible, participate. 

Presentation and speaking expert Olivia Mitchell recently wrote a guest post at Pistachio consulting about how to present while people are tweeting. It's not enough to prepare your talk anymore, you need to be prepared to have a conversation about it at the same time as you expose the information.

Does that make you feel nervous?

I actually do better with interaction. But there is the question of scale to consider. I was at an event last week where the discussion got totally off track after someone asked a question. Care needs to be taken not to go down a rabbit hole or cater only to a small, more vocal, percentage of the room.

As Mitchell says, there are some benefits to having a back channel. Among them:

(1) listeners tend to focus more if they want to share it;
(2) they will share more content with attendees and non attendees;
(3) so that many more can participate not just with questions, but by bringing new information to the conversation.

Perhaps the sweet spot for me would be to share information with those who could not attend. It's a more collaborative way of extending the conversation from the room to whomever is interested in joining it. With a caveat, we all see the world - and take in information - differently based upon our lens or filter. Not sitting in the room gives someone less opportunity to be present to the context.

What's in it for the speaker?

Aside from you not having much of a choice in regard, if you're the kind of person who thrives on situational (remember improv?) experiences, you will do much better by having that kind of feedback. Yes, the back channel can backfire. Mitchell recalls the revolt during last year's SxSWi Sarah Lacy's interview with Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO.

I will put into practice some of her good advice. The value of a presentation is the ability of attendees to learn - and I bow to their needs in terms of learning styles and desire to contribute. I agree that being open about how people take in and share content is the way to go.

I've tweeted at events and I know that unless what I'm hearing is very clear and compelling, or packaged in neat sound bytes, it's not likely I will tweet a lot during the presentation. The other reason why people do, of course, is to voice strong opinions about what you present.

Not everyone is ready to ask a question in front of a group, and Twitter has become an alternative to doing that. Be mindful that under stress - when the world bounces off us, or when our needs are not met - we go to a different place. Luckily, if you're tuned in, there are many other non verbal signals you can read before it gets to a battle of tweets.

What's your experience? Would people who tweet or type at your sessions distract you? How do you deal with the back channel? Do you? Why/why not, if you don't?

And for those who will be at SxSWi, Jake McKee compiled a handy survival guide, complete with schedule of events. Check it out!

[image courtesy of John Bieheler]

Comments

[Rod Gillies]

I work for a fairly "old school" company where not only have half the people in meetings probably never heard of Twitter, but they make everyone switch off Blackberries, phones etc while in meetings.

This probably makes for more effective "top down" communication of information, but makes any Q&A sessions very formal and maybe a little adversarial for genuine interaction and debate.

I'm interested in whether we could let people use Tweets or texts for the Q&A sessions, whilst still keeping better focus in the "info delivery" by banning the gadgets. Does anyone do anything similar to this?

[Rachel Burkot]

I agree that social media tools like Twitter bring interaction to conversations and events, but I can't help thinking it's a cowardly type of interaction. You say "Not everyone is ready to ask a question in front of a group, and Twitter has become an alternative to doing that." Isn't allowing somebody to hide behind technology really doing them a disservice? People should have no reason not to state out loud what they are thinking. I'm afraid tools like Twitter will get people into the mindset of thinking they can hide behind a computer or smartphone when something is going wrong.

[Ben Hedrington]

Here is a cool account of us Tweeting inside big meetings at Best Buy: http://www.garykoelling.com/?q=node/434

Also checkout my simple tool 'spy' we've used to to project the conversation on walls and monitor various conversations... http://spy.appspot.com

[Carolyn Ann]

I wonder what President Obama thinks of the Senators and Representatives who were twittering during his speech?

Perhaps it's acceptable, these days. I can't say I agree! Those Members of Congress who preferred their Blackberries to appearing attentive, respectful and competent, to the nation? (The man is the President of the United States, after all! Surely he deserves some respect?)

Personally, if someone were twittering while I was speaking to them, I'd consider them out of the conversation. If it were a personal interaction, I'd be quite annoyed!

It's not just a matter of respect, it's also impossible - no matter what anyone asserts - for the human brain to work on more than one task at a time. So you're either twittering, or you're listening. Just as in High School, if you're not paying attention - what did you miss? (Which raises an interesting point... Is it okay for adults to twitter away in a meeting, but not okay for students in a classroom?)

While I intensely dislike Twitter, this isn't about that technological wunderkind: it's about the very foundation of relationships: attentiveness and respect, which all lead to trust.

As Samantha Bee responded in that hilarious, sarcastic, and oh-so-accurate skit on the Jon Stewart show: she was so busy twittering that Jon Stewart was talking that she missed what he was saying!

Ah well. The world changes; apparently the concepts supporting personal relationships do, too. (Well, they don't - people don't change.) Twitter has become an ogre. It's sad, but probably true, that Twitter has become the desired means of getting to know someone. Because it's impossible to know someone in 140 characters, or less.

Carolyn Ann

[Mike M.]

Great post Valeria!! It was well balanced and informative, as always.

I fully agree with Mitchell's argument. Tweets are limited to 140 characters so it’s not as if someone will focus all of their energy making updates as opposed to listening. I think of it as a new form of note taking; you jot down key points and quickly refocus back on the conversation.

In my opinion, the back channel is positive. I’d prefer an audience to leave with answers, not questions. Why not get everything out at once (as long as we do it within the allotted time)? It puts more pressure on the speaker to be extensively prepared but it’ll benefit the listeners, which is key.

[Chris Wilson]

I think this is very situational. When you have an audience of 1000 people, the way that you take questions (if you do at all) would be very different from a small presentation to 40 people. With a large audience, Twitter may be a great way to compile questions and let the speaker pull out some gems to respond to. With a small group a the speaker may not even need a mic to address the audience, so there should be a low barrier to asking questions without Twitter.

Something else to consider is the speakers style and what they feel comfortable. Some speakers do great adapting their content on the fly in response to audience questions, but clearly not everyone is. If the speaker wants to take questions as the presentation progresses (with or without Twitter) they have to be in control. I've heard many a presentation where a quack in the audience throws out an unrelated question that throws the train off the tracks for everyone else. How the question was asked doesn't really have any relevance to how the speaker handles the question.

I think some speakers thrive on these back channel conversations and others are clearly jarred by it. Not sure there is a clear cut answer to this one.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Rod - it would be interesting to see what would happen if you'd ask meeting attendees to send questions in advance, or to come with questions written down. Sometimes people need to prepare in advance.

@Rachel - I think a presenter needs to be a good conversation facilitators. And here we're recognizing how people use technology. I've been at face to face events and socials where people use Twitter and talk with each other interchangeably. It depends on the conversation. That's not how I use Twitter, I prefer to look a speaker in the eye, but sometimes during a question or discussion, I might want to jot something down or share it.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Ben - I really enjoyed your post, especially "without a preconceived ideal of what perfect must look like was evidence of a profound shift not necessarily just in thinking but in believing and admitting that perfect in not only impossible, it's incorrect (we're not launching missiles). And it certainly isn't human." Bingo. In so many organizations perfect becomes the tone set by the political clique and often the lie is in the assumption itself. Well done.

@Carolyn Ann - I don't think Twitter is in any way a substitute for meeting and getting to know people and developing relationships. It's probably more akin to an appetizer, giving you a taste and flavor or a glimpse into someone's momentary thoughts, a passing bread crumb. It does allow you to extend your reach a little more. I met lots of interesting people face to face from Twitter.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Mike - would tweeting in class be distracting to you? When I present I like to make lots of eye contact and read body language from the people in the room. In some venues I do better than in others. There is a rhythm to the conversation, even when it's mostly from one source towards an audience. But, I'm aware that learning styles can be visual, auditory, kinetic.

@Chris - indeed, with a smaller group it is easier to establish rapport and connect with each attendee. And it is very much situational, both depending on the speaker and the audience.

[Rod Gillies]

@Chris - we have tried prepared questions a few times, but it always ends up sounding like we've planted the questions! One thing I have done recently was hand out postcards at the breaks, asking people to jot down a question for the Q&A session at the end. That worked a bit better. I suppose I see a gadget-facilitated Q&A as a more sophisticated version of this.

Maybe we could have an open Twitter-based Q&A after the event, with public questions and answers happening in the feed - give people a bit of time to think about any questions, and take the formal "put your hand up" sting out of things. Got a big(ish) event coming up at the end of the month, might try it at that...

[GoEverywhere Team]

This is an interesting conversation and I'm curious to see the continued discussion. Just looking at the header image of the post disturbs me. As a speaker, who wants to look out over a sea of heads looking down at their phone? It seems to me that if you're typing, you're not truly paying attention to the conversation. A sporadic tweet here and there, or recapping the event after, I understand. But I don't know that I'd be thrilled to see a constant stream of updates from everyone in the room!

That being said, as a follower unable to attend the event, it might be worthwhile to "view" the presentation real time. Perhaps there is another way around it - having a designated "Twitterer" for the presentation (and announced beforehand so users can follow that person)?