1. Fair enough; it makes sense if the chair or programmer is responsible for the quality of the panel participants. I agree.

2. Absolutely. I spoke at ad:tech Chicago last year, and it was hands-down the best panel I’ve ever been a part of. The moderator showed me what a good moderator is. Having been on such an exceptional panel at ad:tech may have heightened the bar for me, making the let-down that was Pubcon seem like a bigger deal than it was. I agree with your comment on the need for praise, and agree that I may have been more callous than usual, but this really was a painful session, and I wasn’t the only one with that opinion.

3. Point taken, but there wasn’t even a little input by the moderator; there was none. Also, I disagree with the damned if you do, damned if you don’t line. Clearly you have much more experience with this than I do, but I think the moderator should at least show an interest in the panel, and be informed with the material that’s going to be presented. Any moderator who’s taken this step will, almost by default, come up with a question or two on their own.

4. Sometimes time is of the essence, and this is necessary. Also, I didn’t mean we needed to get together in a pub; how about one conference call prior to the show? We knew months in advance we’d be on this panel. I personally don’t think one call is asking too much. This one call can assist with avoiding overlap, introductions, etc. Hypercritical? Love the term, but have to disagree. Any level of effort on the moderators behalf would’ve caused this post to never have been written. It was the lack of action (email, conference call, physical meeting, etc., even to the point that we still haven’t met), which was interpreted by me as lack of interest, that caused this to be written.

Thanks for commenting; I appreciate it.

1. I think you have it partially wrong. The job of avoiding overlap, and developing an interesting panel in general, shouldn’t fall entirely to the moderator. Honestly, in all the years I’ve moderated, I’ve marveled at how limited the responsibility is – but that the mundane logistical stuff like keeping it smooth, timing the speakers, and heading off problems should they arise – is the main duty of the moderator, as opposed to programmatic stuff.

Programmatic stuff should be the responsibility of the show’s chair or programmer, and contact with speakers should be ongoing to map out interesting angles on a panel. Part of that stems from the strength of the speakers. There are a lot of average speakers out there. Cohesion goes way up when you have top quality speakers. And the speakers themselves can feel free to collaborate prior to the show.

Really, the moderator *is* busy and *is* uncompensated for the most part. If they’re engaging, self-effacing, and good with mikes and timers at the right times, to me, that’s the main thing. The main thing is not to screw it up!

Generic and stale topics and indifferent speaker recruitment seem to be the bigger problem at hand! You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

2. Do you have any recollections of good panels and good moderators? Constructive feedback is often more helpful than the negative stuff. I’ve told friends in the past how much I’ve appreciated the context-setting role played by experienced moderators in sessions, especially when stimulating Q&A. Danny Sullivan and Rebecca Lieb would be good examples.

3. The moderator might have a lot to say in Q&A. As long as she doesn’t dominate, but simply adds a comment, the moderator might be a recognized industry expert and thus contributing much to the discussion. I don’t see why everyone is so down on moderators who participate. It seems that you’re damned if you get involved, and damned if you don’t. That’s partly why I advocate the “good with a mike and a timer” approach, when in doubt. But moderators are on a par with speakers on many panels, even if they may not have PowerPoint to prove it.

4. There is “nothing valuable” about “thank you very much, and our next presenter is…”? A lot of the time, that’s the best thing you can do. The audience really is just waiting for the next speaker, and time is an issue. Here I just think you are being hypercritical. As for getting all the panelists together beforehand – sure, ideally you would meet months beforehand in a pub. But try getting the Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google rep together in the green room before the sessions? Track down a hungover social media marketing expert for an extra meeting outside the session in the a.m.? Good luck.

I have seen the other end of over-involved moderators too…in one panel, the Moderator insisted on adding his comments to every single question that was asked to the panel by the audience…and then an additional set of comments for every response a panelist gave and he also tried to insert his company’s view point in every comment he made. Not a pretty sight…

I think the suggestions on pre-event preparations are critical to avoid overlap and ensure comprehensive coverage. In many events, I have seen that the panel topic itself is not very well conceived…the topics are too generic & stale, and the handbook doesn’t provide sufficient guidance on making a choice between the multiple parallel sessions. If the moderators take the lead, it can help the attendees by setting right expectation from a panelist’s session.

I was absolutely FLOORED when your panel dissolved into a 15+ minute Pitch on how to use the other panelists “beta” for building mobile websites – I cant believe it was allowed to happen and then continue.

I think that if you’re not interested in doing it right – dont volunteer or agree to do it at all.

My personal favorite is when a speaker says “I didn’t make up any notes because I knew the people before me would do a fine job covering the topic…” Please…somebody pay these speakers so they feel obligated!