The "just call up and start asking questions" format rocks,. Including the ring at the beginning really sets the tone.
anjali28
· 1 year ago
Great job. I think it was Lacy's fault though for not researching the conference background properly, not Zuckerberg's.
I'm looking forward to your next 'who is the real scoble and what is he upto' interview as well.
cshotton
· 1 year ago
Production note, Dave. You need to turn up the gain on your side of the interview for the next one. You're pretty quiet compared to Scoble. Maybe move the mic closer? (Nice interview, regardless)
cshotton
· 1 year ago
I was at the Builder.Com conference you refer to, in the room during your "presentation". It was a cool, interactive session and one of the first times I remember seeing the "speaker" completely forego the lectern in favor of sitting at a table with the attendees and turning it into an interview of the audience. Being a good "presenter" or "interviewer" seems to have much less to do with preparation beforehand than it does with understanding the interests of the audience and their expectations. After that session, I made it a point to start every presentation or trade show session I did with a few questions to gauge who was attending and what they cared about. Engaging with the audience out of the gate gets them to invest in the success of the session. Trotting out to do a live interview is only gonna succeed if the subject of the interview is interesting in and of itself. Likely the crux of Lacy's problem.
tommorris
· 1 year ago
There *is* a divide between the BusinessWeek types and developers. SXSW is predominantly a developer conference - all the people I know there (with the exception maybe of Scoble) are designers, web developers, software developers, W3C staff/standards people and so on. The reason developers go to SXSW is because they can't stand the self-serving nonsense that goes on at Web 2.0 and similarly over-priced VC fodder.
Just as a complex discussion of tech standards or APIs would be inappropriate at an event for VCs and business types, BusinessWeek questions aren't appropriate at a developer/geek event.
Jake McKee
· 1 year ago
Tom, there may be a "divide" but to say that the 8000 person strong audience at SXSW is just "developers" is ill informed, to be honest. If we're going to play the "all my friends are ______, therefore that's how it was overall" game, then SXSW was made up of developers AND authors, videographers, writers, designers, artists, strategists, and community folks.
ryantate
· 1 year ago
This was a great interview and you kept in on track well Dave. Well timed, good questions.
Rex Hammock
· 1 year ago
Dave, this was a great interview. I think you did a great job getting Robert explain fairly and accurately what went on and I appreciate his attempts to bring some sanity and perspective to what appeared, as you described, to be a meltdown. I thought about blogging a response to this, but, frankly, I'm tired of talking about the topic, so this comment is going to be it for me on this topic.
However, I want to note a few things.
First, I'm a little offended (not by you, but in general) by the term "mob" used an adjective to describe the collective response of those in the audience. They (we) were simply using the tools you've helped to pioneer and evangelize that enable a back-channel conversation to expand beyond the 2-3 people sitting within a few feet of you.
Rather than "a mob," what I was witnessing (and being a part of) was the "un-conferencing" of an event that is already noted for being fairly conversational and open. The months' long process of how each session is selected and voted on by potential attendees is extremely participatory, while still being "curated" in such a way as to keep the topics and panelists timely and engaging. The audience in the keynote probably had more people who have atttended meetups, podcamps, barcamps, gnomedexes and bloggercons than any crowd who has ever been in a room together. The audience was made up of people who don't believe they are being a "mob" when they believe someone called "an interviewer" is being rude to both them and the interviewee.
This was an audience comprised of people who used IRC before Twitter came along.
Yes, I really am sorry that I might sound like I'm attacking an individual -- I'm sure talented individual -- when I describe what I think happened and why it is both important and instructive...and in a small way, perhaps a watershed moment. But I've spent a good portion of the past decade preaching to my colleagues in the magazine industry that while we're good a communicating "to" our readers, and even, perhaps receiving one-to-one communication "from" our readers, where magazine editors and writers (and other traditional media people) have failed to comprehend is that readers talk amongst themselves. Even today, they don't get it. The moment at which Sarah went from being a bad interviewer to achieving poster-child status of the "don't get-its" and a target for derision was when she began to (and in some ways, continues to) blame "Twitter" or, more naively, the notion that people talking-amongst themselves victimized her. She blamed the audience for being a bad audience and started playing victim. Then, through post-session spin, she and others have tried make "the audience" and those who were there "a mob" who are guilty of sexism -- or other forms of -isms I can't quite figure out.
So now, people who were in the audience and have tried to explain what they viewed are being attacked personally by those who weren't there -- and so it goes.
Actually, I think the controversy is going to be a good thing for the discussion of the future of topical gatherings -- of what conferences should be and the roles of presenter, attendee, panelist, etc.
Also, ironically, I believe this could be the greatest thing to every happen to Sarah Lacy. I know I've already pre-ordered her new book that comes out in May. It's #52 on Amazon right now. It was probably #gazillion before this happened. She is rumored to have received a $500k advance for it, so I hope the publisher makes its money back and she goes on to have a huge writing career.
Okay, I'm officially finished with this topic.
Harl Delos
· 1 year ago
> First, I'm a little offended (not by you, but in general) by the term "mob" used an adjective to describe the collective response of those in the audience.
A mob isn't an adjective, it's a collective noun. It's a herd of bison, a lodge of beavers, a flight of butterflies, a murder of crows, a charm of finches, a gaggle of geese, a wisp of larks, a tiding of magpies, a school of fish, a pod of whales, a bevy of rabbits, a drey of squirrels, a sounder of swine, a rafter of turkeys, a phalanx of storks, and a mob, yes a mob, of kangaroos.
Would you prefer that he refer to the group as a wisp, a tiding, o r a murder? The word mob has gained some use other than with kangaroos because it connotates unruliness. Can you imagine a mob of kangaroos all jumping around?
I wasn't there, and I haven't read much about that assemblage, but "mob" seems to be a perfectly appropriate collective noun, from the little I've gathered. (If Dave actually intended it to be a slur, please accept my Emily Litella "never mind" apology.)
All Comments
I'm looking forward to your next 'who is the real scoble and what is he upto' interview as well.
Just as a complex discussion of tech standards or APIs would be inappropriate at an event for VCs and business types, BusinessWeek questions aren't appropriate at a developer/geek event.
However, I want to note a few things.
First, I'm a little offended (not by you, but in general) by the term "mob" used an adjective to describe the collective response of those in the audience. They (we) were simply using the tools you've helped to pioneer and evangelize that enable a back-channel conversation to expand beyond the 2-3 people sitting within a few feet of you.
Rather than "a mob," what I was witnessing (and being a part of) was the "un-conferencing" of an event that is already noted for being fairly conversational and open. The months' long process of how each session is selected and voted on by potential attendees is extremely participatory, while still being "curated" in such a way as to keep the topics and panelists timely and engaging. The audience in the keynote probably had more people who have atttended meetups, podcamps, barcamps, gnomedexes and bloggercons than any crowd who has ever been in a room together. The audience was made up of people who don't believe they are being a "mob" when they believe someone called "an interviewer" is being rude to both them and the interviewee.
This was an audience comprised of people who used IRC before Twitter came along.
Yes, I really am sorry that I might sound like I'm attacking an individual -- I'm sure talented individual -- when I describe what I think happened and why it is both important and instructive...and in a small way, perhaps a watershed moment. But I've spent a good portion of the past decade preaching to my colleagues in the magazine industry that while we're good a communicating "to" our readers, and even, perhaps receiving one-to-one communication "from" our readers, where magazine editors and writers (and other traditional media people) have failed to comprehend is that readers talk amongst themselves. Even today, they don't get it. The moment at which Sarah went from being a bad interviewer to achieving poster-child status of the "don't get-its" and a target for derision was when she began to (and in some ways, continues to) blame "Twitter" or, more naively, the notion that people talking-amongst themselves victimized her. She blamed the audience for being a bad audience and started playing victim. Then, through post-session spin, she and others have tried make "the audience" and those who were there "a mob" who are guilty of sexism -- or other forms of -isms I can't quite figure out.
So now, people who were in the audience and have tried to explain what they viewed are being attacked personally by those who weren't there -- and so it goes.
Actually, I think the controversy is going to be a good thing for the discussion of the future of topical gatherings -- of what conferences should be and the roles of presenter, attendee, panelist, etc.
Also, ironically, I believe this could be the greatest thing to every happen to Sarah Lacy. I know I've already pre-ordered her new book that comes out in May. It's #52 on Amazon right now. It was probably #gazillion before this happened. She is rumored to have received a $500k advance for it, so I hope the publisher makes its money back and she goes on to have a huge writing career.
Okay, I'm officially finished with this topic.
A mob isn't an adjective, it's a collective noun. It's a herd of bison, a lodge of beavers, a flight of butterflies, a murder of crows, a charm of finches, a gaggle of geese, a wisp of larks, a tiding of magpies, a school of fish, a pod of whales, a bevy of rabbits, a drey of squirrels, a sounder of swine, a rafter of turkeys, a phalanx of storks, and a mob, yes a mob, of kangaroos.
Would you prefer that he refer to the group as a wisp, a tiding, o r a murder? The word mob has gained some use other than with kangaroos because it connotates unruliness. Can you imagine a mob of kangaroos all jumping around?
I wasn't there, and I haven't read much about that assemblage, but "mob" seems to be a perfectly appropriate collective noun, from the little I've gathered. (If Dave actually intended it to be a slur, please accept my Emily Litella "never mind" apology.)