As a first-time SXSW attendee, I was really looking forward to living the hype. Got there on a Thursday, pulled my shiny badge with my photo I’d pre-loaded weeks earlier (too bad for all those who had to make do with a photo taken when they least expected it by a webcam situated directly under their chin), and got set for a few days of exciting, informative panels and keynotes.
Oh, the panels. The titles alone had me hooked: Battledecks2011, Fear and the Art of Creation, OMG – My Pancreas Just Texted, etc. How could this be anything but glorious? And then, of course, there would be the networking. Lunches, dinners, parties, and impromptu meetings all over the place. This is where the best interactive minds were congregating — designers, developers, the rare design-opers, managers, leaders — a convention of the world’s coolest smarty pants.
And what would be the big topic of conversation? What breakout app or cool new technology implementation would everyone be talking about? What would be that thing over which the Lords of Buzz would hold sway?
As I sit here now, a week after returning from the event, I look back with fondness for the experience, but frustration about how ultimately unsatisfying it was. This frustration stems from the content of the conference itself. The networking was great, but the panels were on average extremely, well… average.
And that fact, as it turns out, was the big topic of conversation.
“Can you believe how disappointing these panels have been?”
“I’d say one in five was worth something.”
“I’ve heard almost nothing new or worth writing down at all.”
I found myself wondering how some of these panels were ever approved to begin with, but when I discovered they were in large part the result of attendee online voting, it kind of made sense. Many of these presenters were the lucky winners of a popularity contest, granted the privilege of showcasing their “expert-level” knowledge because they were savvy enough to leverage their social networks effectively. And because there were so many sessions to choose from for any given time slot — more than ever before, in fact —the odds of stumbling into something worthwhile were severely diminished. As Ian Schafer of Deep Focus lamented, “Every panel attended meant another one missed, leading to many cases of ‘panel remorse,’ especially as many panels and keynotes failed to live up to the hype . . . something that is becoming a nearly annual occurrence and a growing problem for conference organizers.”
Ironically, the low quality of many sessions turned out to be a great way to generate high-quality conversation during networking opportunities. The feeling that the content of these panels was ultimately disappointing was a critical consensus, and led to interesting discussions about what should be done to improve things. The main, and probably obvious, point? Organizers need to have the discipline to schedule fewer sessions and exercise tighter control over the content and quality of them. Not a groundbreaking notion, but something that, in my opinion, other conferences clearly benefit from.
Lest I sound too negative, I should say that it wasn’t all bad. On my panel schedule there were a couple of real gems, particularly one focused on leadership of creative teams by Sarah Nelson of Hot Studio. That lead to a valuable impromptu meet-up later in the day to continue the conversation with the presenter and a number of attendees. I got some good insight on design issues from other panels, and really did enjoy the Q&A with The Hangover director, Todd Phillips.
Despite the hit-and-miss quality of the panels, the networking events were stellar. Since this is the conference to attend, there were lots of great opportunities to get to know really top-tier people in our industry, and further develop existing relationships and professional connections. I don’t know that any other event that can match what SXSW provides from a networking standpoint.
So. Great networking, mediocre conference content. One out of two ain’t bad. It ain’t necessarily good, either.