Why is it that panels generally suck at conferences?

I was at one this weekend.  The participants were very credible. The moderator was from the press - good way to get them to events - so he had to know the subject well. Perfect fit on two counts. But it wasn't and the end result was like many panels - a 'suck the oxygen out of the room' experience.

This seems unreasonably cruel of me to pick on this weekend's panel. In truth, the panel was as consistent as many I’ve attended and what’s consistent across all of them is that they fail miserably.

My initial argument is that panels should die. In a world of productive narcissists, is there really room for a crowd response? The only thing that's pulling me back from this conclusion is that this is too easy a response. Just like an agency that goes back to a client and says, you should change the product and then we can do great work. I can't let the concept of a panel die.

So my argument is that panels can work. Just look to European television for examples of successful panels. France, for example, puts on a great panel. Many of their talk programs are panels rather than one-on-one interviews. After spending five years living in France, I think I can recall what they did right. The panel was a casting exercise. There's the contemplative writer, the 'fill every silent moment' comedian, the philosophy professor contrarian, the passionate celebrity artist and the gorgeous actress. Ok, I'm exaggerating a little but only a little.

Panels need thoughtful casting. While having four CMOs together on a panel makes logical sense, is the casting right between the four? The most critical casting in my book is the moderator. The moderator has to play all the personalities mentioned above in one and in France they often do. What I often see at conferences is a range of moderators - the sycophant moderator who can't believe he's sitting with such greats; the disengaged moderator who doesn't care about the subject or the participants; the 'I'm a professional moderator' who pretty much lives with the disengaged; the 'I love my own voice' moderator; the 'I know this subject better than the participants' moderator; and finally, the 'I'm a participant' moderator who like the previous moderator type, basically leaves little room for the participants to answer questions. They answer their own questions in their question.

Moderators are under-appreciated at best and at worst, not really thought about until crunch time. One point to consider when choosing a moderator is that moderating a panel versus interviewing an individual is a hugely different skill set. Take Terry Gross, who in my opinion is one of the best interviewers out there. Would she be good with a panel? I really doubt it. Panel moderators are a special breed and once they are found, they should be captured and released for those panels they have some interest in. An example of good panel moderation in my book was John Winsor's moderation of the digital panel at Tangerine's event last year. I sure hope they do another one this year and I sure hope John moderates again.

Now to the panelists. It's hard to match the casting of French television in a marketing field but similar dynamism can come from different disciplines sharing the stage or different executive levels - the young marketing guy who is heavy in to digital sitting next to the 50+ CMO will create good drama for the audience and be good for both panelists. Trying to find a contrarian always helps but this suggests that the panel has been posed an overall question. It is this last point that I think is critical to any panel. There should, in my opinion, be a point of view expressed that can be agreed and disagreed with. This creates great debate, great dialogue and great theatre for the viewers.

Last weekend's panel discussed the integration of brands in programming and all three CMOs had done it and done it well. They all had a similar approach in to the program and they all experienced the same results. What about having someone on the panel who approached it differently, scaled it up differently and another panelist who failed in their first few attempts and the panelist who strongly believes that product/brand placement is lazy marketing and offers up alternative ways in. Now that sounds like an interesting panel to me.

I recognize that being British, I'm always after a fight and for me my recommendation above creates the most juices for panelists and viewers together but not everybody wants to see a fight. To those people, I recommend at the very least making sure that you get a range of personalities on the stage and have a moderator who is strong enough to recognize who should be allowed to speak most for the sake of the audience and the subject and who should be left quiet. Sacrificing panelists should not be feared because like moderators - some are great at giving panel and some are just not cut out for it.