Two conferences about ideas took place in Sydney last Saturday, TEDx Sydney and Social Innovation BarCamp. While both involved exploring concepts and thoughts they could not have been more different.
One was about exclusivity and elitism while the other was about a genuine exchange of ideas. Both the events tell us much about the new and old models of communication and learning.
At the Paddington College Of Fine Arts, Social Innovation Bar Camp – SIBSyd – was open to anyone with an idea or who just wanted to show up a throw some thoughts around. Across town at the Everleigh Carriageworks, the TEDx Sydney offshoot of the prestigious US TED event featured high profile speakers before an invitation only audience.
Most TED events are exclusive and restricted you have to be qualified to attend, let alone speak and this showed in the way the audience were ushered into the auditorium and then asked to turn off their mobile phones unless they wanted to sit in the back two rows.
The speakers at TED were slick, rehearsed and had their presentations timed exactly to the minute – as you’d expect at an event where the content is carefully chosen – while at SIBSyd any of the audience could choose to speak.
Even with a speaker everybody at a SIBSyd is able to participate, with all the audience of giving their views. In the reforming education session I sat in on a quiet lady at the back of the room told her experiences of working with villagers in Chiapas, Mexico.
It’s unlikely that lady would get an invite to TEDx, let alone have the opportunity to tell her story and that illustrates the fundamental difference between the two conferences.
One is the formal, traditional one-to-many lecture from an expert imparting wisdom on an audience awed by the speaker’s knowledge while the other sees the speaker – who may be an expert – drawing out the collective wisdom of the room.
The “unconference” structure of meetings like SIBSyd probably does a better job of developing new ideas as the traditional conference TED is based upon that assumes the expert on the stage already has the answers.
Of the two types of conferences, it’s probably safe to say the collaborative “unconference” model works better in driving innovative solutions to problems. To work effectively though it needs the participants to be motivated by common issues.
The traditional TED style conferences do a better job of getting big ideas across to a broader audience and that’s probably one of the reasons why the event’s videos have been such an Internet success.
Some of the differences reminded me of British writer Paul Carr’s comments about the South By South West Conference in 2009 when he said “I really hope that next year one or two of those early adopters will organise – and I mean that in the loosest sense – a user-generated unofficial fringe conference to sit alongside the main event.” In many ways SIBSyd was the fringe festival to TEDx’s “establishment” status.
Both have their role and probably the most worrying thing at the two events was the lack of Australia’s corporate and political leadership, with the exception of Penny Sharpe, MLC who appeared to be the sole member of Parliament attending TEDx, there was little representation from either group.
In a time of massive climate, technology and economic change that is challenging the assumptions and business models of previous generations, it’s a shame our business and political leaders aren’t engaging and listening to those outside their narrow circles.
But ideas are one thing and action is another. As journalist and enfant terrible Stilgherrian said during the day, “completely over events about ‘ideas’. We have plenty of ideas. What we need is a bit of effort put into execution.”
Hopefully out of both events we’ll see some of the ideas discussed turned into action
Good post Paul, I agree there’s definitely a place for both kinds of conference (maybe even a few more kinds of conference too!). Just as people learn in different ways, people get different things out of different conference experiences.
Despite the elitist label applied to TED and TEDx events, at TEDxSydney the org committee goes to considerable effort to try and select an audience on only two criteria; it must be (a) diverse; and (b) interesting.
Good post Paul, I agree there’s definitely a place for both kinds of conference (maybe even a few more kinds of conference too!). Just as people learn in different ways, people get different things out of different conference experiences.
I suppose the high production values and high demand for tickets might make TEDxSydney seem elitist, or somehow less ‘real’ than an unConference. But it’s important to remember that everyone involved in producing TEDxSydney is an unpaid volunteer, working in many cases for months out from the event.
More importantly, many of the speakers at the 2010 and 2011 events had not spoken at an event of this scale before. I assure you, it’s terrifying on that big stage. If they came across as slick and professional, that’s surely to be celebrated as a personal achievement for them, not grounds for suspecting them of being more sizzle than steak.
TEDxSydney’s organisers go to considerable effort to try and select an audience on only two criteria; it must be (a) diverse; and (b) interesting. The quiet lady working with villagers in Chiapas may well have been selected if she’d applied. Let’s not assume she wouldn’t have been. Celebs — business or political — are subject to the same selection criteria. Perhaps many of those who applied were felt to be doing nothing more interesting than trying to stay in government or make huge profits? I know, it’s unlikely, but… 😉
Speaking of which, to Stilgherrian’s point, I think it’s important to consider how many ideas we need to throw at society to get one to stick — my bet is that it’s not a 1-to-1 ratio, and that reducing the number of new ideas wouldn’t increase the number of new ideas implemented.
Ideas still have some historical baggage to overcome — that ideas are only the domain of a certain class of people, that all the big ideas must be adopted by various kinds of people ‘in charge’ before they will affect society, and that individual action won’t make a difference.
I hope events like SIBSyd and TEDxSydney are playing a part in breaking down those misconceptions. TEDxSydney’s Remo Giuffre talks about “ideas as entertainment” as a deliberate strategy. Would you rather households watched “Australia’s Funniest Home Videos” on a Saturday night or the latest TED Talks?
And if we’re not seeing enough new ideas get up and implemented, well… [points to the ideas] …pick one… 😉
Thanks for the replies Alan and really good points. We do need more good ideas and that “stick ratio” is probably 50:1 rather than 1:1.
My point about the pollies and business people is more about them being in the audience and listening. I’m genuinely concerned we’ve developed a managerial culture in the corporate and political worlds that disregards and may even be hostile to ideas that come from outside their organisations. I suspect this is the main reason for the malaise we see in modern politics.
Congratulations to you, the organising committee who kindly allow me to attend and the dozens of hard working volunteers who pulled off a very smooth and successful event.
Hopefully we will see homes watching TED video rather than toddlers falling off swings or distressed families being bullied by check-in clerks in the near future.
Great post – and well worth talking about.
There is definitely an audience for both (and other) kinds of conferences. I’m one of the volunteers for TEDxCanberra – and coincidentally, about half the volunteers are also involved in running the annual BarCamp Canberra. So I confidently say that there is a place for both types, and they can complement each other.
Also worth considering are the different stages people may be at regarding their engagement with the ideas culture on show at TEDx and BarCamps. TEDx’s high profile and presenter/conference style is likely to be a great place for people to start, while BarCamp might be better for people that are a little further along and ready to dive in. Some people really struggle to understand the unconference style until they see it with their own eyes – so it can be hard to attract people that aren’t already into the ideas scene.
Generalising about either TEDx or BarCamp is tricky as each event under those banners can be quite different. TEDxSydney looks like its on the way to matching the original TED in terms of production values. Many other TEDx events are tiny by comparison, perhaps taking place in a large tute room at a uni.
For those people that have been engaged in this space for a while now, I can totally see how a glut of ideas with no action is frustrating. Without action, ideas aren’t worth much. But a key role for these gatherings is to bring in people that are new to these ideas and motivate them to take action. This in part explains why events like TEDxSydney would invite people to attend – its a way to include people that are ‘not the usual suspects’ that are already part of the ideas community. We’ll do something similar for TEDxCanberra via a ticket lottery if demand exceeds the number of seats in the theatre.
Each of these events has some newcomers – so while we are enjoying hanging out with our tribe, we should keep an eye out for these people and make sure they feel welcome while also pointing out the opportunities act.