Let’s pretend you’ve paid good money to see a major new theatrical production in your city. It’s not going well, and after a while, you get bored and antsy. What is your first reaction?
A. Heckle, “Get real actors!” or “I could do that myself!”
B. Get up and politely walk out
C. Endure and then talk about it afterward
If you’re like most people, you probably would have chosen B and/or C. If you attended the Mark Zuckerberg keynote at SXSW, then A could very well have been your reaction.
Here’s my take: what happened at SXSW was despicable, and downright rude. Enough is enough.
Let’s get the disclaimer out of the way. I wasn’t at the keynote. I wasn’t even at SXSW. My info comes second-hand from talking with colleagues who were there, reading all the tweets and blog posts that followed, and watching all the video clips that are now starting to trickle out. Go ahead and move on if you feel that disqualifies me from being able to comment.
Here’s my take: what happened at SXSW was despicable, and downright rude. Many in the crowd didn’t get the kind of conversation or answers they wanted, so instead of doing the normal thing — walking out or talking about it afterward — they decided to treat the venue like it was their living room and heckle. Instead of calling out this behavior as rude, many well-respected A-list bloggers are praising it and identifying it as a new kind of model for moderated panel discussions.
What makes it worse is that this was not the only “revolt” of its kind to take place at SXSW. A panel on measurement also got the same “inmates taking over the asylum” treatment. You can read about it here.
Just to be clear, I’m not painting the brush wide enough to include *everyone* who attended with this behavior. It’s evident that these were isolated incidents. I’m also not rushing to defend Sarah Lacy’s poor interview. I don’t even like Sarah Lacy (for private personal reasons that stem from my time while working for a different employer). I also happen to think that side-conversations and Twitter back-chat is fun and adds a refreshing side-angle to public events. But this wasn’t about fun or interesting side-conversation. It crossed the line into boorishness and unacceptable public behavior.
Here’s my question: when did this kind of idiocy become acceptable public behavior? It’s not cute, it’s not cool, and it’s not fun. If you don’t like the content of a panel or keynote, here are your options:
* Walk up and leave
* Blog about it
* Tweet about it
Notice the option that is missing? This isn’t your living room and it’s not MST3K. Don’t sit there and yell at the stage!
I make my living in part by putting on these kind of events, and as a moderator, I know that you ought to be able to carry on a public event like this without fearing it’s going to be overrun by a horde. Not because I’m some anti-free speech Herbert looking for sanitized discussion, but because boorish heckling doesn’t contribute to what everyone is (theoretically) there for in the first place: having a good, interesting conversation.
Enough is enough. It’s time that we as a community — especially the A-listers who get quoted everywhere as so-called “experts” — stand up and call it like it actually was: rude and unacceptable.
Tags: Customer Behavior, rudeness, sxsw, zuckerberg
Michael, an extreme example of ramifications in “the participation economy”. Are we changing expectations as to what is allowable – from a participation perspective – as we continue down this Web 2.0 path? Are we re-writing the rules of decency as we go?
Michael – Good analysis. Thank you.
Michael,
Free speech is a right and a privilege, and as with any right or privilege it comes with responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to allow those who want to listen to be able to do so. No one came to the presentation to hear audience members interrupt the speaker.
Great analysis, Michael. I have to wonder if all of this Web 2.0 “bathrobe communication” has helped people forget the social niceties. We’re safely ensconced behind our monitors and represented by avatars. Obviously face-to-face interaction is still necessary, if only to remind us that there are people behind those ideas.
Never a truer word spoken!
I’ve been know to utter a “shut the heck up – i’m paying good money for this” when people even heckle at a movie. Had i made it to SXSW and gone to any panel where people behaved like this i’d have felt the same way. regardless of how the content comes out – it’s a matter of respect and courtesy that you save negative feedback until the appropriate time. (ie – not when theres other people in the audience that really dont want to hear you!)
Great post Michael!
I completely agree. It’s astonishing how much a “mob mentality” can proliferate during an important session…and people who normally would have calmness and courtesy would behave like mindless teenagers at a rival football game.
Barbara Ling
ps – the MST3K comment was most appropriate.
I don’t know. If I was at an event I paid for that sucked, I’d be pretty upset. When did it become ok to accept boring and “not good” as something we should be ok with? Just walk away? Why? How about changing the scene? Making it better? Sure, don’t be a total you know what, but you know what I’m saying.
From my understanding, the interview was boring, and well, how many of us have been to those things where it was a waste of our time? Too many.
It’s all entertainment. Either get up on stage and give the crowd what they want, or don’t get up on stage, that is true for the interviewer or the interviewee, it’s your obligation.
I have a right to tell you if you suck, especially if you do.
I guess what I’m saying is. I expect more, and I’m not willing to take less. I speak a lot and do lots of intros and on stage conversations, and I consider it my job to make things entertaining. You shouldn’t be up there if you don’t have that attitude.
I skipped the Zuckerberg debacle, but was at the SM Metrics panel. It wasn’t as bad as people are making it out to be (at least from the second row). Heckling isn’t nice, and it’s immature–but the people doing it do it constantly (albeit for other subjects) through their blogs and feeds for a supportive audience. Why wouldn’t it carry over into RL action, especially if you already knew you had the support via monitoring backchannel communications? In the Zuckerberg case, though, it seems like a big part of the problem was matching a 1.0 interviewer with a 3.0 subject and audience.
I’m looking forward to seeing how the powers that be at SXSW handle the ability for instant feedback at next year’s panels. Meebo and Twitter certainly made things more interesting from the audience.
Listening to all this, I feel like I’m back in high school when we convinced ourselves that we could behave however we wanted, as long as we were being “real”.
I agree with Jim that speakers should strive to make their presentation entertaining and “worth” it. The question I have for Jim is if the presenter sucks and you tell them so, does that make them not suck? What are we accomplishing by getting in people’s face like this?
If you don’t like the presenter, leave. Make a note and don’t go see them again. Send a note to the organizers and let them know you were disappointed. But acting like you’re 13 doesn’t accomplish anything and may result in good speakers refusing to subject themselves to this kind of potential abuse.
I hate to take such an opposing view, but here it goes…
I think that to see this was to believe it. There was a different vibe in the air that simply doesn’t come across in the video. I was in the overflow room and people all around me were grumbling nearly from the onset. Michael, you said: “It’s evident that these were isolated incidents.”
But that’s the thing… it wasn’t isolated. There’s a reason that the main room and the overflow rooms erupted into insane applause when Lacy was challenged. As I looked around the room I was in, heads were shaking, eyes were rolling, people were leaving, hands were thrown in the air, and people were vocally sharing their dissatisfaction.
So a few random thoughts/responses:
1. The video simply doesn’t show the full story. What’s missing is the in-person context, and the raw surprise of the poor presentation. By the time most people not in attendance view the video, they’ve already had it contextualized in some way. There mouths don’t drop when Lacy turns to the audience and complains about how hard her job is. (Mine certainly did) They’ve already heard about how flirtatious Lacy was with Mark. They have some context for what was going on in the twitter and meebo backchannel.
2. Ours is an industry that is ripe with “experts”. I think we’re starting to see some of the backlash of what happens when everyone has a platform, but not necessarily the chops.
3. Lacy showed how poor a choice she was to run the core keynote session when she got huffy with the audience rather than getting them back on track. She knew better and refused to accept that the audience might want something different than *she* wanted.
4. Let’s not forget her own huffy twitter and video interview post-session that didn’t help her case in the slightest.
5. This session was pre-arranged, scripted, and rehearsed but approached and presented as though it was an off the cuff fireside chat. Transparency has become increasingly important to our interactions with companies, and I think that has extended to all aspects of our life. As the interview got rolling, the audience felt lied to as it became increasingly obvious that a) Lacy was trying to simply sell her book by proving how chummy she was with Mark, and b) that the whole thing was a skit, not a discussion.
6. I’ve always considered getting up and leaving mid-stream just as rude, if not moreso than trying to change the tide through audience feedback. Perhaps others disagree, but I’ve also never walked out of a movie out of respect to the movie maker, and this included Blade II. Yeah, I’m that crazy about it.
7. People show up to conferences, and pay money (DAMN GOOD money, thousands of dollars in many cases) to see good content. I can count on two hands the number of truly amazing sessions I’ve seen out of the hundreds I’ve sat in.
8. There is a marginal or non-existent feedback loop for speakers/audiences. I’ve spoken at conferences many times and I’ve probably gotten feedback, real feedback 2 or 3 times. Personally, I welcome engagement from the audience. If I get so far off track that people are yelling at me, I hope I’d feel humbled enough to apologize and work on getting back on track. It’s also another reason I ask the audience what they’re hoping to get out of the session at the beginning and customize on the fly.
9. I wasn’t in the social media measurement panel, but those I talked to who were said it was frustratingly bad. Yes, they could have gotten up and walked out, but that would focus negative attention on them (i.e. a perception that they are rude because they’re leaving early), rather than on the panel where it should have been. The panel was clearly unprepared and unable to deliver on the topic they were presenting on.
At the end of the day, I don’t think this was a simple issue of “rude and unacceptable” behavior. I think that the rise of participatory culture, combined with more open space type events (BarCamps, unconferences, etc.) have changed our perceptions of what is, in fact, acceptable.
This year’s Twitter was actually “the Backchannel”, and I think anyone who speaks or puts on conferences will need to consider how to work it into each presentation.
It is difficult to not agree with the original author AND with Jake McKee.
Social interaction is changing, maybe evolving is more accurate, in a large part because of the innovative and clever applications being developed in the “web 2.0″ arena. And yes, I just slapped myself for saying “web 2.0″, but the idea of social interaction and the ways technology is supplementing those interactions is fascinating and can’t really be ignored.
It has been said that there are no absolutes and we judge according to the circumstances. Whether the circumstances include after the fact analysis from second hand stories or limited scope digital media, you work with what you have.
Whatever happened at SXSW, it didn’t involve dunking, burning at the stake, or public beheading. In this respect, we’ve come a long way.
New wrinkle .. how do speakers keep pace with online conversations about their presentations? How do you incorporate that into a session? Do you have to dedicate people to follow the “twits?”
All that said, I don’t know why it should, but it continues to surprise me that people who talk about how social media builds relationships often are the same people to use the media to rip people .. in a most unkind manner.
Jake is dead on. Bottom line is, the audience has grown beyond “fireside prescripted chats”. You want that, go watch 20/20.
We want real discussions, with breaking news. We’ve already read the article on Techcrunch about “how your solution works”.
Bring it, or stay home.
Good article, this must be said.
Most adults will never behave this way. If it becomes common the forum will either dry up or turn into a shouting match, which, again, few will participate in. This is not participation, it’s hijacking the forum at the expense of others. This “I’m in my living room” behavior has been going on for years in movie theaters – and how is their attendance doing? These are people who just crawled out of Mom’s basement long enough to attend and are now safely back home. Soon, big, legit conferences will be ready and pitch these cretans out, like the political conventions do. When it comes down to their revenue vs a supposedly new social order, guess which will win. The best and completely reliable solution is to email all our member organizations and tell them if it happens at their meeting and they are not prepared to handle it and get on with adult business we will walk out and not be back till they fix it.
This is the third account I have heard about the rude conduct at SXSW.
And I was appalled to hear how poorly a presenter was treated… until I just watched the footage.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSEaNgvSN4I
It’s a clip of Sarah Lacy interviewing Mark Zuckerberg. She seemed disinterested in his comments, in a rush to get to her points.
I agree it isn’t appropriate to heckle… but in the scene I saw of the Sarah/Mark interview… she was trying to prove Mark a liar about whether or not he burns his notebooks.
She seemed to create an overly casual scene… Twirling her hair… flopped back in the chair… More interested in being chummy with him than being a representative of the crowd and asking what they want to hear.
I think the audience picked up on her selfish approach. A good interviewer asks what the audience wants to hear. Along with the privilege of meeting way-cool people is the responsibility to be a representative of the people. She wasn’t demonstrating that… created a situation that was too casual… and she lost trust and control of the audience.
I just found a clip by Time Out interviewing participants…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NxInjleLzCg
Most all interviewed said it was too casual.
If I were in the crowd, I would have been happy someone had the guts to speak out. Unfortunately, it was too late… and no one cared at that point.
Folks: I watched the (1) video of the keynote and (2) Lacy’s remarks after. I was not in attendance.
I wholly appreciate Michael’s point of not being rude but I’m also thankful for Jake’s on-site experience. My take? Well, at first I didn’t believe it was a keynote (I thought I had the wrong video loaded). Yes, even in a Wowsa/Webby 2.0/Unconference era, the format was just odd. I also found that Lacy was overly flirtatious with her subject and over-sold how great her book and Amazon ranks are. And I never felt decent questions were asked. Then to tell audience members how hard being up there was negated what a privilege she was given. It’s a privilege to speak at a conference, much less open one up.
Even worse, she said in a post-interview right after (forget whom was interviewing her) that “she had made a mistake speaking to a developer audience” which I would feel as a SXSW organizer was a blatant slap in the face. And then she remarked that the audience ruined the potential for high-profile speakers at future shows. Maybe that’s how she really felt, but it came across as so highly arrogant (and sour grapes).
Not done there, she then tweeted with “seriously, screw you guys” which was just crass…especially given that she openly asked people to email her and tell her why she did so poorly.
But at least I learned that Mark keeps detailed books in longhand and then burns them. And that Lacy has a book coming out.
I do understand that they had time to prepare for this interview…which made it seem all the more strange. Just my $.02.
I agree with some of the responders that being in front of a monitor instead of out in the “real world” may be making some people forget how to be polite. Or maybe polite just doesn’t work anymore. Either way, some of the behavior I’ve been reading about is downright juvenile. I remember forming coups like that in elementary school.
The moderator definitely should have been able to get a better read on the audience and steer the conversation in a more effective direction. If the moderator is not able to read body language, I think having an assistant monitoring social media is the way to go.
However, if the discussion is just not meeting up to the audience standards and there are no signs of it doing so, wouldn’t a walk-out send a much stronger message? Instead of being rude right back to a rude moderator, just leave. When the panel is talking to themselves, maybe then they’ll get the message.
This is a tough, one; I liked your article, especially as I think it supports the golden rule, stepping up and saying that actions by individuals are against the grain is a good idea, and what social media is all about. We help to influence others by calling things out as we see it.
Yet in reading Jake’s response there did appear to be some serious issues with the presentation, especially, if this presentation was part of an overall pattern in the conference overall. I recall there was a conference in Europe that had real problems because the organizers invited lots of French politicians who made political speeches hijacking the conference and the audience was not happy. If you have paid for a conference, and a large number of people don’t like the presentations surely there must be room for some dissention. However, maybe that’s the point, in today’s world, where people are more willing to participate we have to give people a method to give dissent. I don’t condone the actions of the people who heckled. But the event is an object lesson in managing participation.
I think your post criticizes not the dissent but the way it was leveled at the presentation. Some people have responded with cries of free speech, to me that is a poor defense for behavior that is boorish. As the convention in such presentations is that you give the interviewer and interviewee the chance to say their piece and then audience member’s questions are taken.
I wasn’t there but I’ve read the comments out of curiosity. If there was ever a case for re-evaluating the entire conference speaker issue, this is it.
Many conference organizers expect company reps and consultants to speak pro bono, assuming that it will give them exposure to their target market segments. Although that may be helpful to business development people in the business sector, it isn’t always the case for independent consultants who may be thought leaders in their areas of specialty.
You get what you pay for. When you hire professional speakers for breakouts and keynotes, you should expect professional results. If evaluations come back negative, that affects speakers’ business prospects, so it’s in their best interests to wow their audiences.
When conference organizers expect their speakers to work for free, the speakers are often juggling their daily business responsibilities with the need to prepare for speaking engagements. They may not have had the time to hone their speaking skills as professional speakers do, like those who belong to the National Speakers Association. And as such, conference quality can be erratic.
Yes, professional speakers have a cost, but if conference participants are paying good money to attend, they have an expectation that they will be entertained and/or learn valuable information or they won’t be coming back the next year.
Mike,
I enjoyed reading your post. I believe the audience members missed a great opportunity to use today’s instant communication methods to stage a mass walk out. No heckling, no shouting just a 1,2,3 let’s all get up and leave silently. If they felt they needed to do something, I think that would have made a bigger impact. In the end, it is my opinion, that there is nothing gained by either side to be rude or insensitive.
Just my two cents!
Thanks for a new perspective on this issue, and giving us a forum to digest it anew and discuss.
I agree there’s absolutely no reason to be rude and belligerent in the process of speaking up. However, the other two options B and C simply acquiesce to the all too prevalent “shut up and put up” silencing in society.
I’m a big proponent of not silencing ourselves. Maybe because I’m reading about the civil rights movement, and Septima Clark, and the Highlander School’s approach of developing ENGAGED citizens(not “ooh, just go along”)…
So I’m all for democracy and free speech everywhere, and certainly conferences with the word INTERACTIVE in their titles.
There must have been someone in the audience that could have raised a hand, or if necessary stood up with conviction to interrupt assertively (not aggressively to make a statement. Yes, I absolutely believe we can and ought to speak our truth in straightforward terms without hurling rage, or the jeering hurtful name-calling sort of commentary.
As an audience member at SXSW, and a panelist, I can tell you that there were several panels that were completely out of sync with what the audience expected. The most extreme case came on Tuesday afternoon after many people had already gone home. There was a panel titled ‘Futurists Sandbox: Social Technologies 2025′. The title alone sounded cool as hell and there was a jam-packed room at onset with people backed up outside waiting to rush in if anyone left.
The ‘panel’ turned out to be…I kid you not…a ‘funeral’ for Dirk Diggler, the porn star character from Boogie Nights. I saw a couple of other presentations where the speakers didn’t cover topics that the audience wanted to hear, then they had to raise the topics during Q&A.
I don’t necessarily condone the activity of the audience, but in Lacy’s case, she did everything possible to encourage the behavior. Her style was terribly awkward as she sat flirting with Zuckerberg and twirling her hair. Then when he talked, she looked completely bored, then started pimping her book. Twice Zuckerberg pointed out that she was just talking instead of asking him questions. Of course this was a pressure value for the audience, and they erupted into applause both times. Then of course after the keynote she got on Twitter and said ‘Screw you all!’ to everyone that was bashing her.
I dunno. I find it hard to condone the audience’s reaction, but I think Lacy did everything possible to encourage it. She wasn’t prepared, she made the audience feel uncomfortable, she talked to Zuckerberg instead of asking questions (and asked the wrong questions), and then she finally referred to the ‘mob mentality’ of the crowd.
I wasn’t there, but am torn– a little. I know there is a line to what is acceptable behavior, but also think that line is movable.
The keynote Q&A was way off-base for what the SXSW audience wanted, and as paying customers they have a say– in not coming back next year, in walking out– or simply showing people in real-time that it’s not working instead of sitting there and taking it or leaving and missing out.
So in general I don’t have much of a problem with the crowd’s behavior– especially at a conference where participation and “Web 2.0″ rule the day.
It’s just as rude to put on panels/keynotes/speeches that bore, insult, or plainly don’t speak to or serve the audience.
This type of behavior certainly doesn’t translate to all venues. Classical music, for instance. Imagine attending a premiere of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring and a riot breaks out in the audience? Oh, right. In hindsight, the “riot” became part of the performance.
“The keynote Q&A was way off-base for what the SXSW audience wanted, and as paying customers they have a say– in not coming back next year, in walking out– or simply showing people in real-time that it’s not working instead of sitting there and taking it or leaving and missing out.”
And you have to remember that this was probably the most anticipated event of the interactive portion of the festival. But the audience had to sit through an interviewer that wasn’t asking the questions they had come to hear answered, and instead was spending most of the time talking to Mark and pimping her new book. When she did ask a question, it was about Facebook’s valuation and management, topics that BusinessWeek readers would likely care about, and that the SXSW crowd didn’t give a damned about.
Lacy did everything possible to encourage the exact reaction that she got.
@Bill Sharp said: “These are people who just crawled out of Mom’s basement long enough to attend and are now safely back home”
Just so you know, I’ve been out of my mom’s basement for months now… my wife and baby didn’t like the noise the hot water heater gave off.
All joking aside, I’ll skip over pointing out the irony of using insults to point out the error of being rude to the presenter…
@Jamie said: “…wouldn’t a walk-out send a much stronger message?”
First off, I don’t think so. You can see on the video several times Lacy is having a hard time even seeing the audience with the stage lights up.
Secondly, walk out? Why? There’s a Social Web rockstar on stage in the same room 2000 people are in who all want to know things from him. Walking out basically throws away the portion of our entrance fee we paid to see him, when we can also demand that the moderator turn the (derailed) session over to those of us who also want to ask questions.
People DID have their hands up. As I understand it (I was in an overflow room), people were lined up at the mics well in advance of her asking for…er… being berated into accepting questions.
And for the point being made here and elsewhere that the conversation was too casual? I disagree… it was too unprofessional. Casual would have been perfect for this audience. Casual works when professionals are talking professionally, and when the moderator is being a professional.
For an example, check out:
http://tinyurl.com/3bsqsn
THAT is how you add a sprinkling of the personal, make it casual and fun, yet still ask and demand hard q&a.
What ever happened to common courtesy is it a lost art with mannerism. http://hotcookies.net
While I agree that the Lacy-bashing went on a little too long, I think you’ve missed the tone of the event. The audience was quiet and reserved for the majority of the meeting, although you could tell from looking around that most people felt uncomfortable. It was only later, when Mark replied to one of the interviewer’s long-winded and aimless comments, “Do you have a question?” that the audience erupted in pent-up laughter and applause. And yes, things went a bit downhill from there.
She was a poor interviewer, and displayed an unnecessarily disrespectful and mocking tone since the interview began. Her comments to the audience during and after the meeting didn’t garner any sympathy for her either…
Slightly off target, but out of curiosity: does anyone know if Lacy had ever done an on-camera interview or live interview before?
If she hadn’t, it might explain some of her awkwardness
@Toad Yes, she’s been in front of a camera, if not a crowd before. She was equally unprofessional.
// My take on Lacy
That energy was meant for Zuckerberg, as there are a lot of fears and excitements surrounding FB. This was the people’s opportunity to hold him personally accountable for practices that most of us don’t agree with.
Lacy stood in the way of the mob and their quarry. This is the organizers oversight. They should have placed a strong mediator there, or at least put someone else on stage when they saw it spiraling out of control.
// Regarding the metrics panel
Another trouble spot waiting to happen. I was at Virtual Worlds 2007 in NYC last March and saw the same poor show in their metrics panel. These conferences are selling products that don’t yet exist. In the case of VW2007, the crowd didn’t erupt in chaos because the demographic was quite different.
// To future presenters, “Know your audience.”
This industry is true Revenge of the Nerds. We grew up on this stuff and were subject to second and third class citizens for it. There’s an exuberance and elation that comes with the rising profile. An entire industry of angst-filled rock stars.
The behavior? Inexcusable to some. But to vast others it will be celebrated.
We’re talking about one of the most passionate and sensitive industries in the world. And relatively inexperienced, in terms of social practice and behavior in business. Arguably, it could be that this sort of openness and accountability is a new standard. That’s what our industry brings to media, why would we expect the heart and soul to be any different in real life?
No matter how you look at it, it’s understandable how it happened. I think that we can expect to see more of this for some time, whilst we’re all trying to get a handle on where this new world is going.
So to the media hoping to serve this group moving forward, “Surprise! You’re going to have to change your approach drastically.”
Jason
http://www.twitter.com/jasonhargrove