I’m sure most of you have attended an event of some sort, be it a user group, association meeting, conference or tradeshow. At these events, you’ve probably encountered a panel discussion on topic X or the latest Y. Did you ever wonder how those panelists got on there? Why they were there?

Panels provide a great means of communicating lots of information in a short period of time. It blends together several themes and thoughts and fortifies that with a wide collection of experts. In many ways, it’s the credibility of the panelists themselves that really drive the weight of the conversation.

Just this week, Rich Westerfield pointed to a great bit of data from the E-venting blog. It took a look at attendee satisfaction levels for panels (both moderated and roundtable).

When the session was a Panel Presentation (where speakers prepared individual or a collective presentation), the Session Score was almost always higher than the Speaker Average.

When the session was a Roundtable Discussion (where 3-5 speakers conversed without a presentation), the Session Score was almost always lower than the Speaker Average.

Source: E-venting, “Presentation vs. Discussion (or ‘Attendee Evaluation Analytics’)”

So we know that people get value from this. Naturally, the show is generating value as well. They’re able to market the panel, the panelists, and even collect some money from the attendees. But what about the panelists, should they pay?

This topic surfaced on Jeff Jarvis’ blog and has generated some conversation. Jeff’s point, half jokingly it seems, is such:

I was asked to be on another damned panel in February, this one for the Software & Information Industry Association’s Information Industry Summit and I just got notice from them that if I want to attend the whole two-day gabfest, they expect me to pay them and love doing it:

[…]

We as panelists come as their trained monkeys to give these conference organizers the only damned content they have and they expect us to pay for the bananas? Well, peel this!

Source: BuzzMachine, “Panelists, unite!” via “Panelists and payments”

There are any number of methods used in compensation, not limited to this list:

• Free / Discounted Registration
• Reimbursement for Travel / Lodging
• Networking
• Sponsorship

In the end, it mainly boils down to the value you create for the event, both at the individual level and overall. I’ve spoken on a number of different panels in a number of different industries. I’ve had my time paid for, my travel paid for, and everything in between. Personally, I value getting to meet new people and learning about another interesting industry - so I’m not too distressed about participating (Hugh from GapingVoid shares this sentiment).

Jeff’s case is especially frustrating since, as a panelist, you have to make all the same arrangements to be there for one hour as for one day. To somehow quarantine individuals off from the rest really seems to misunderstand the value created. Is it likely that attendees would have questions for the panelists? Is it likely the panelist has and is willing to contribute to many other conversations at the event? Is it likely treating someone as a consumer when they’re actually part of your staff bizarre? You bet it is!

I’d argue that all the levers need to be adjusted to provide great value to both parties. If the panelist is speaking to an industry that they are not part of and will likely have limited networking opportunity, the monetary lever seems to need to go up. If the panelist is gaining major mojo from the speaking opportunity and will likely build useful relationships, turn down the monetary lever.

Ultimately, for me, however, the real question is why are the conversations not valued. If there’s no value in having them and capturing them, why bother? If there is, why scrutinize it this way?