Organising conference events can be hard work. Often requiring the sort of juggling and resolute focus that would make a circus performer proud, they can also be unforgiving, with most audiences quick to give their feedback – positive or negative – via some pretty easy to read body language.
While your choice of speakers can often make or break an event, I would argue that the format or structure of a session can be just as critical in determining audience response.
The ‘panel session’ has become one of the go-to formats across the conference landscape. At face value they seem to tick a lot of boxes, after all, multiple speakers means multiple perspectives. And informal conversations can be more engaging than death by PowerPoint.
On the flip side, however, a poorly run panel session can be an excruciating experience for both the audience and the participants.
Over the course of 50 sessions at 5 All Licensee PD Days, we’ve had the opportunity to glean a wealth of insights on audience response to different sessions. While topic, time of day, and obviously the individual speaker all play a part in determining the success of a session, we’ve found that by far the biggest determinant of (1) whether your session was seen as valuable and (2) whether the audience would like to receive follow up contact from the presenting sponsor, was session structure.
That’s right, over 50 sessions, each with an average attendance around 1,200 advisors, panel sessions generally performed lowest in terms of value perceived by the audience, and leads generated. At our most recent event, single-presenter sessions collectively were 40% more effective at generating leads than panels. Going back further and looking at both our 2023 events, panel sessions made up 4 of the 6 lowest rated sessions in terms of their perceived relevance and value.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not to say these sessions bombed. On the contrary, they all comprised industry leaders with highly compelling content – and they were still seen as relevant – but there is something in the nature of panels that means they have to work harder to achieve cut through and keep the audience engaged.
How to avoid panel fatigue
Based on our learnings, here’s a quick checklist for ensuring your panel is as effective as possible:
- No more than 4 people on stage
If you put more than 4 people on stage (including the moderator), then you may as well give up – the chances of a lively conversation have been sabotaged from the start. - Don’t waste too much time on introductions
While it’s interesting to know the credentials of panellists, I have seen too many panels where a quarter of the session time is chewed up just introducing everyone and their wonderful achievements. Rather than reading through their CV, just put that detail in the conference program for the audience to read at their leisure. - Don’t do opening statements
Another trap is giving each panellist a monologue at the start of the session, where they can wax lyrical about the topic and their position on it. Aside from the time waste, a bigger problem with opening statements is that they can make it much harder to put the ideas and perspectives of the speakers into genuine conversation with one another. It’s like they are staking out their ground beforehand, which makes it harder for them to move in the context of a fluid discussion. - Genuinely guide the conversation
Rather than just directing a series of questions (usually in sequence) to each panellist (so they all get equal time in the spotlight), be fluid and reactive so you can go wherever the conversation takes you. While a degree of preparation and choreography is necessary to make sure a panel doesn’t go off the rails, too much focus on giving everyone a turn can be counter to a flowing conversation and just comes across as stilted and monotonous. And don’t be afraid to cut someone short (politely) if they are beginning to ramble, pass the baton to another speaker. A good moderator is critical. - Pick panellists who have something to say to each other
A panel shouldn’t be a series of individual conversations between a single panellist and the moderator, it should be a conversation between interesting people, who ideally have differing perspectives on a particular topic.
Sharing our insights to boost your cut-through
These insights were based on our increasingly popular All Licensee PD Day (our November event is already a sell-out), but they are representative of the way we work with our partners across all our channels – whitepapers, podcasts, videos, articles and more. By creating content based on the insights from our 9,000 Ensombl users, we are effectively co-creating content based on what advisors want. And as I have shared many times before, the dividend from that approach is an uplift in responsiveness of 45%.
Any audience would love that.
More from Richard Dunkerley
