How a Recent Experience Made me Examine my Position on #PayToSpeak Conferences in General
28.10.18 - 14:11 - Filed in: Software Testing
After careful consideration, I have withdrawn my submission to Swiss Testing Day 2019.
I have spoken at the largest testing conference in Switzerland several times in the past years. My experience has always been rewarding and I had a lot of pleasure interacting with the delegates. I really liked the Swiss Testing Day, and according to the delegates’ feedback, they liked my sessions, too. So, I again submitted an abstract to the 2019 event.
There is a two-phase process with Swiss Testing Day. First, you submit an abstract of your proposed session, which the programme committee then evaluates. If your abstract passes the first round, they ask you for your slides upon which they decide on definitive admission. After submitting my proposal, I received a confirmation of passing the first round. Different to past years, the confirmation email, however, contained the following sentence:
I submitted my slides and also asked what that sentence meant exactly. As it turned out, they added an additional condition to their admission policy. Any company that provided some sort of services (e.g. me at House of Test as a consultancy), is expected to buy a sponsorship for the conference. I told them that this is not acceptable and asked for an in-person meeting. We had a long discussion, but it did not change their position.
After having made a reasonable — yet failed — effort to help the organizers understand, that a speaker’s responsibility is to provide engaging content and not to bear any financial burden, I withdrew my submission. I decided to go public because I believe that behaviour like this diminishes the quality of conferences in general. It favours the ones who are able (and willing) to pay over the ones who have a good story to tell.
It is regrettable that some conferences still don’t reimburse their speakers for their expenses and in this specific case even add costs on top of that. I find that unacceptable. Therefore, I have come up with my short list of conditions to speak at conferences:
The above rules do not apply to non-profit events, meetups, peer conferences and any event whose main purpose is community building.
Here is my call to action for all speakers out there: Refuse to speak at conferences that treat their speakers unfairly. Come up with your own rule set and make it public. I do, however, understand that this is easier if you are an established public speaker. But if you are, your statement will help new voices to emerge. It will also help speakers with limited personal funds to come up on stage and tell their compelling story.
Let’s together work towards a more balanced relationship between conferences and speakers. The future is bright!
If you agree with me, please sign my online petition.
I have spoken at the largest testing conference in Switzerland several times in the past years. My experience has always been rewarding and I had a lot of pleasure interacting with the delegates. I really liked the Swiss Testing Day, and according to the delegates’ feedback, they liked my sessions, too. So, I again submitted an abstract to the 2019 event.
There is a two-phase process with Swiss Testing Day. First, you submit an abstract of your proposed session, which the programme committee then evaluates. If your abstract passes the first round, they ask you for your slides upon which they decide on definitive admission. After submitting my proposal, I received a confirmation of passing the first round. Different to past years, the confirmation email, however, contained the following sentence:
- Please be advised that if your presentation is chosen to be included in the main program, sponsoring at some level is required.
I submitted my slides and also asked what that sentence meant exactly. As it turned out, they added an additional condition to their admission policy. Any company that provided some sort of services (e.g. me at House of Test as a consultancy), is expected to buy a sponsorship for the conference. I told them that this is not acceptable and asked for an in-person meeting. We had a long discussion, but it did not change their position.
After having made a reasonable — yet failed — effort to help the organizers understand, that a speaker’s responsibility is to provide engaging content and not to bear any financial burden, I withdrew my submission. I decided to go public because I believe that behaviour like this diminishes the quality of conferences in general. It favours the ones who are able (and willing) to pay over the ones who have a good story to tell.
It is regrettable that some conferences still don’t reimburse their speakers for their expenses and in this specific case even add costs on top of that. I find that unacceptable. Therefore, I have come up with my short list of conditions to speak at conferences:
- The conference reimburses ALL speakers for their expenses (travel/accommodation)
- For workshops and tutorials, I expect an honorarium on top of expenses
- I refuse any special deal for myself
The above rules do not apply to non-profit events, meetups, peer conferences and any event whose main purpose is community building.
Here is my call to action for all speakers out there: Refuse to speak at conferences that treat their speakers unfairly. Come up with your own rule set and make it public. I do, however, understand that this is easier if you are an established public speaker. But if you are, your statement will help new voices to emerge. It will also help speakers with limited personal funds to come up on stage and tell their compelling story.
Let’s together work towards a more balanced relationship between conferences and speakers. The future is bright!
If you agree with me, please sign my online petition.
blog comments powered by Disqus