

How To Get Your Conference Talk Accepted - chadfowler
http://chadfowler.com/blog/2013/05/25/how-to-get-your-conference-talk-accepted/

======
patio11
That's a post I've been meaning to write for a while.

Back before I had a reputation as a fairly decent (tech conference) speaker, I
had a proposal which was accepted at the Business of Software, which was a bit
of a reach for me honestly. I'll find the exact text if anyone is interested,
but it hit three bullet points:

1) Social proof that I had something interesting to say (I run a blog,
somebody you the conference organizer knows has cited me favorably before)

2) A one-sentence pitch for why my topic would be interesting and topical for
the attendees

3) The (accurate) prediction that people would talk about my talk even after
the conference was over, because (for a for-profit conference) this helps
accomplish their #1 business goal, which is selling more tickets for next year
(n.b. point #1 also speaks to selling tickets if you can claim an audience
which will follow you to the conference)

------
iuguy
Hmmm... I'm not sure I'd agree here. At 44Con[1] we get an average of between
100-150 talk submissions a year. Just reviewing all the talks once as part of
the CFP panel is a herculean effort. If everyone had a 2 minute intro to their
talk I guarantee that after the first few none of them would be watched by
anyone on the panel simply because you're looking at adding 5 hours to each
scan through the submissions.

The enthusiasm is a strong and valid point. People who are keen to come always
score higher than people who can't be bothered putting the effort in.

I would suggest that anyone who wants to get a talk accepted needs to:

* Structure their submission properly

* Make sure they provide sufficient detail for reviewers to identify what the talk is about

* Provide enough detail for the reviewer not to have to google obscure terms

* Have somewhere on the Internet (e.g. a blog, github etc.) that allows reviewers to easily work out where the speaker's skills lie

* Have video or slides from the speaker available - e.g. on Youtube so reviewers can see how they speak. If you haven't spoken at a conference before, make a video of a howto describing something related to what you're talking about

[1] - <http://44con.com/>

~~~
r00k
_If everyone had a 2 minute intro to their talk..._

If everyone starts including a 2 minute intro, then it won't make you stand
out anymore, and you'll need to take a different tack.

The reason I sent Chad that video was to demonstrate passion. Doing what
everyone else does doesn't accomplish that.

I recommend taking this as an illustrative example, not a step-by-step guide.

~~~
josh2600
Lets be honest though, if every presenter included a 2 minute video it would
make the process faster, not slower.

100 presentations x 2 minutes is a little over 3 hours. That's not that bad.
I'd imagine reading and debating a 2 page questionnaire would take longer.

------
dagrz
This applies to everything you do which depends on review.

Want a particular job? Put in more effort than everyone else. Create a ‘I want
to work for you’ website. Be prepared at the interview. Understand everything
about the organisation. Quote its founders.

Want to have your paper accepted? Do a little research about what they are
looking for. Contact the reviewers directly and ask for help. Get your article
reviewed by people who have been accepted previously.

Want to have your RFQ response win? Read the requirements carefully. Make the
reviewers jobs very easy. Address criteria directly and clearly. Ask
questions.

I am consistently surprised by how little effort the average person puts in to
any reviewed endeavour. It really doesn’t take that much effort to stand out.

