Slide decks and PASS Summit: About Me Slides

May 25, 2016   //   by Karen Lopez   //   Blog, Events, Professional Development, Speaking, SQL Server, Training  //  10 Comments

Karen Lopez About Me Slide

I’ve been extremely lucky to have my sessions selected for speaking at PASS Summits for 4 of the last 5 years.  One year all my topics (data modeling and database design) were deemed to be “off-topic” for the Summit crowd. The good news I still got to speak because each of the two founding organizations (Microsoft and CA) let me use one of their slots or co-presented with me on the topics of database architectures and designs.

One of the outcomes of speakers using their community slots to do sales from the podium is that this event now has a rule that your slide deck can have only one mention of your name and our company.  Yes, because people were being overly focused on what they could get out of the crowd instead of sharing knowledge with attendees, the rest of the speakers and attendees have to feel pain.

Win-Win

I’m proposing that we allow speakers to put a form of their About Me slide at both the beginning and the end of a slide deck.  Yup. Just one more slide.

The first About Me slide is to establish a the speaker’s credibility on the subject, plus to disclose any potential conflicts of interest the speaker might have. Speaker works for a vendor? Check. Speaker wrote a book on this? Check. Speaker is a data architect and not a DBA? Check.

Note that having a potential conflict of interest on a topic isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  It’s just a disclosure, not a confession.  In the past, when InfoAdvisors partnered with vendors, that would be on my About Me slide for presentations about data modeling, because I had partner agreements with most of the data modeling tool vendors.  We don’t have partner agreement any longer, but we do work with data modeling tool vendors.

When I speak in vendor-hosted slots, I’m careful to explain to attendees that they are in a paid speaking session and I disclose why I’m there and whether or not I was compensated to be there.  In the Summit year I spoke in vendor slots, I wasn’t compensated other than to get a spot via means other than the program committee.

The second About Me slide, at the end of the deck, plays the role of "Okay, I just talked with you for an hour about something I’m passionate about. If you’d like to talk more about it, or if you have problems with my demos, or if you have a question you want to ask me, here’s how to reach me.

For me, this isn’t just the norm for all events, it’s etiquette as well. 

Some speakers in the community have said “but all the attendees know who we are”.  No, no they don’t.  Celebrity is a bit overrated here. 

Regulation is Born from Bad Behaviours

I think it’s odd our community has a rule that keeps us from doing the second slide. I know the rule came from speakers who were overly sales-y in their talks. That’s what makes me sad about the other discussions I blogged about yesterday. Bad behaviour by sales-focused speakers ruins the experience for attendees at the event and for years after.

Bad behaviour by sales-focused speakers ruins the experience for attendees at the event and for years after.

If we started collecting data from attendees about how promotional speakers were in their sessions, that would be a much better indicator of whether or not sales was happening from the podium.  At EDW for the last several years, the attendee survey asks people:

“Was the speaker too "commercial?"  i.e. did he/she seem to be selling their own product / services / book / etc.?”

It’s a simple Yes/No question.  The measure is reported back to the speaker and the event organizers.  The overall conference evaluation asks for the attendees to list the speakers who were overly sales focused during the event. I think that’s a great question to ask the community. This data is much more likely than the ban on mentioning your name more than once in an hour to indicate whether or not the speaker is there to sell you his or her stuff.

One of the reasons decks have to be submitted for review at Summit is so that dozens of volunteers can scour the slides for mentions of the speaker’s name or company.  That isn’t really a value add for attendees, yet we do it because people have been overly focused on selling their products or services instead of the community. We’ve incurred a huge cost (in volunteer hours) to enforce this and some other less important things AND added months to gap between slide preparations and presentation time. This leads to pain for both the speakers and the audience.

Speakers break this rule all the time.  Some get called out, some don’t. We basically have a rule that is unevenly enforced and silly. It’s time to change this rule. 

It has been five years I’ve been asking for our community to change this rule. I believe I’ve followed it every time I’ve presented at Summit. There may be a time when the last slide from having given the presentation before has stayed in the deck, but I really want to follow the rules. So now after 5 years of emails and chats, I’ve blogged about my idea for win-win solution in hopes that other community folks will say “yes, I think that’s a good idea”.

Make it Right

We should be asking attendees of sessions and in the overall conference evaluation if a speaker spent too much time selling his blog, his books, his services or his products. We should allow two slides about the speaker in a slide deck.  These two changes to our rules will benefit attendees and speakers. These changes are win-win.

10 Comments

  • I use the second About Me slide, but limit it to my contact info. I have had folks come up afterwards at presentations asking to get my email to follow up on something I said. That makes it easier on the attendees who want to have that extended conversation we can’t have as the next speaker preps for his or her talk.

    • Very good point here. Questions after a GREAT…and also an issue with time and logistics.

      I don’t really care if the second slide is just a repeat of the opening slide. I use a form it is, without my “bio” part there. I usually replace that with “Thank You”.
      Karen Lopez recently posted..Slide decks and PASS Summit: About Me SlidesMy Profile

  • You should just always include a JSON demo on your last slide, that way you aren’t breaking rules. 🙂

    • Remember when I got flak for showing the data on slides about how my name was screwed up? Yeah.

      Some speakers get to put their name in the title, but my using examples of real live personal data was wrong.
      Karen Lopez recently posted..Confusing Community with SalesMy Profile

  • So outside of Summit are the two about me pages sandwiching the presentation SOP? I’ve never really though about it, but I generally put my contact information on the title slide, and, the “why I’m qualified to babble about shit shit for an hour” on the second slide. Should I move the contact information to the end? No one has ever complained, and I just cant recall what other people do, because well I usually tweet someone to DM me their email address if I want to talk to them.

    • Yes, SOP for speakers is a slide at the beginning about who you are and such. I include my social media info mostly because so many people know each other from those places and not so much full names.

      Then at the end I put contact info and my name again (because people forget names).

      Don’t move the information..repeat it.
      Karen Lopez recently posted..Slide decks and PASS Summit: About Me SlidesMy Profile

  • I put my contact info (b, t, LI, email) on the last slide where I ask for questions.

  • I like this explanation – never thought about it but I’ve always done intro at beginning and contact info at end. Whether accompanied by slides or not.

    Even when I do internal presentations. I don’t expect anyone necessarily to know my name or upfront have a reason to give weight to what I say. And – just as much as I don’t expect them to know who I am, I want them to ask questions later if not in the session proper.

  • I agree speakers may need to use scripts that they have developed during their presentation, this helps the attendee learning experience. When a speaker uses a script in a session that script should be made available for the attendees to download for free with free modification rights.
    These “free” scripts should all have open source license. The attendees should be able to develop or modify these scripts further without limitation or paying the speaker. If the speaker wants to use scripts that they don’t open source or prevent attendees modifying the scripts freely (of course with attribution), then these scripts should not be used during the presentation. What is the benefit to the attendee if they have to pay the speaker to modify these scripts? these kind of limited right scripts (with links pointing back to the speaker’s website) become an advertising medium for the speaker or his company and of not much use for the attendee.
    For me, when I go back to my office after PASS and implement some of these scripts, my manager usually asks me to modify some, I can’t tell that I only learned how to use these scripts and did not learn how to write such scripts or that we don’t have the rights to modify them. These kind of “commercial” scripts with no free modification rights should be provided through vendor channel so I can decide whether to learn how use them or not.

Leave a comment

Subscribe via E-mail

Use the link below to receive posts via e-mail. Unsubscribe at any time. Subscribe to www.datamodel.com by Email


Categories

Archive

UA-52726617-1