Tweet

There are lots of startup events.  While generally well-intentioned, we’d estimate that only 50% are useful and there are a fairly high proportion that actually suck.  Through extensive statistical analysis, we’ve found that there is a high correlation with how much a startup event sucks and its format being a panel discussion.  So this rant is a request to stop doing panels, and if you’re going to do them to offer some ideas on how to improve them.  (BTW, Mark Suster, partner at GRP Partners has a nice post on panels as well which is worth reading)

Why do panel events generally suck?

There are many reasons, sometimes interrelated, but the primary issues with panel discussions we’ve seen come down to these six. After the six issues, we also highlight a few ways to run a panel (if you must) that actually is interesting and useful.

Why panels are usually useless?

The Bloviating Panelist – There is always one panelist (sometimes several) who when it’s their turn to get the microphone blabber on and on about how great they are or all they’ve accomplished or veer so far off topic that the whole audience, other panelists and the moderator are all thinking to themselves “what a f’in windbag”.  But of course, nobody calls them on this for some of the reasons below.  So this bloviator feels like they’ve provided some amazing insight and value while everyone is collectively rolling their eyes.

“You’re awesome. No you’re more awesome.” – Startup panels often have like-minded people on them given the topic of the panel requires (or should require) them to have some domain knowledge.  So a panel on ad networks will have folks related to the ad network space.  In many cases, they are doing business with one another or may want to do business with each other.  So often, there is lots of self-congratulatory talk and agreement amongst panelists.  Hearing one guy say something and then 2 or 3 other guys agree with him and say “I’d concur with what Joe said and add …” BORING.

Moderators don’t moderate – Moderators usually throw up softball questions like “where do you see X going…” and then bloviating panelist(s) goes on some meandering useless soliloquy.  And after the diatribe to makes thing worse, moderator says “Great points Joe” encouraging bad behavior.  The problem is that many panels are moderated by people who are not experienced in moderation and who often for lack of a better term are “less accomplished” than the panelists.  For these reasons, they don’t know how or feel comfortable telling windbag 1, 2 or 3 to shorten their answers or challenging them as they should.  Moderation is not thinking of some questions in advance and asking them one by one and going along one’s merry way.  It requires understanding responses, keeping things on track and challenging panelists to move the discussion forward.

The Platitude Panelist – Not sure if the bloviating panelist is worse, but the platitude panelist doesn’t have anything useful to offer except startup euphemisms or jargon.  You’ll know the platitude panelist by the fact that they make utterly inane, inactionable comments like “well, you just have to build something people want” or “customer development is important” or “you really need to determine product market fit”.  Note to panelists, these don’t make you sound smart unless you can offer some tangible anecdote or insight to complement them.  The platitude panelist really on his game may also drop random popular industry jargon in as well so terms like “gamification, group buying, location-based, cloud, SaaS, social (anything), or real-time” are particular favorites right now.

The F-bomb Panelist – This one is increasingly common.  In an effort to appear authentic, rough or “from the startup streets”, there is one panelist who likes to excessively drop good old curse words.  And while we think the occasional well place F-bomb is good for emphasis or to wake folks up, the panelist who does this excessively is annoying and contrived.

Panelists Are Not Relevant Peers – This is the toughest one to solve.  If you must organize a panel, you want to get “A-list panelists” which usually means senior folks from high profile companies or leading VCs or whoever.  Ideally, some of the panelists will have some name recognition amongst potential attendees which helps to sell/market the event.  This makes sense.  The problem, however, is that the challenges and tasks of these folks are very often different than the startup audience.  When we hear “I’m the CMO of xyz and since taking the helm, our ad sales have grown from $100 million to $2.3 billion”, that is great and the guy is probably highly competent, but if you’re startup is trying to go from $0 (pre-revenue) to $10,000, $100 million to $2.3 billion is a different solar systems.  Sure there might be some lessons in there and it might be aspirational, but the lessons are often not particularly salient.

How do you make panel discussions good?

Controversy – Get panelists who don’t agree or ideally who hate each other.  This will lead to interesting discussion and usually to new ideas.  It will also be better for your event as people will talk about it afterwards either live with one another or on Twitter or their blog.  This is good for you.

“Get a foreigner” – Related to controversy, we’ve generally seen that those not as familiar with our US conventions of politeness or political correctness will be freer to offer up dissenting opinions and  spice up the discussion.  Europeans in particular (holy generalization Batman!) are particularly good in this role in our experience with Brits being the best at engendering debate and stirring the pot.

Get a moderator whose a peer and has cojones or someone who just doesn’t give a damn about people’s feelings – Panelists can have egos or just be well-intentioned and loquacious.  A moderator needs to be able to cut off windbags, ask hard questions and push panelists (nicely) when they’re not offering insight or really answering the question the moderator has asked.  So if the moderator is someone who generally doesn’t give a darn or is someone who is a peer, they’re better equipped to handle the role of moderation.  Of course, moderation also requires preparation.

What do you think?  Are panel discussions useful?  Are there any secrets to running a good panel?  What types of startup events do you find are the most useful to you as a startup founder ?

Tweet