Charts are charts, right? Wrong.
You have a lot of decisions to make when creating a chart, most of which seem benign. But some of those decisions can make a critical difference between providing insight into the underlying data and causing the reader to draw the wrong conclusions.
To illustrate just three of the ways charts can be made to be misleading, check out Ravi Parikh post on How to Lie with Data Visualization over at Heap's Data Blog.
Global Equity Organization's call for their annual conference really stands out for its clarity and conciseness. Our favorite part? The "What Happens After You Submit Your Proposal" section. Check it out at http://www.globalequity.org/geo/node/3265 and see if you agree.
The most common model for selecting presenters for educational conferences is pretty straightforward:
Although the process works for the vast majority of meetings, it's hard to argue that it can't be improved.
One suggestion we've noticed recently is to open the process up to crowdsourcing. Basically, the idea is to leverage the power of social media by turning over the selection (and possibly scheduling) tasks to attendees. For a more detailed explanation, see Michelle Bruno's post at TSNN.
Another suggestion, seemingly at odds with crowdsourcing, is to have a curator manage the selection and scheduling tasks. The idea here is that conferences, like museum exhibits or other curated collections, are far more effective if the content is carefully selected and organized to "tell a story" to attendees. For more information, see Jeff Hurt's post on Velvet Chainsaw's Midcourse Corrections blog.
So which is it? Crowdsourcing obviously works for larger conferences, like SXSW, but does it also work for smaller meetings with more focused content? And how about curating? Does it work for every type of conference or only for those that can be organized around a clear theme? How about a hybrid? Is it possible (or even desirable) to combine the two into a single model?
Jeff Hurt recently posted something on Velvet Chainsaw's Midcourse Correction blog that caught our attention. Basically, he points out how past attendees and prospective attendees employ different criteria when deciding whether to attend your conference and recommends unique marketing strategies for the two groups.
Past attendees are already biased in your favor (assuming they found your event valuable). They know what your conference is all about. You just need to remind them of the experience and demonstrate how the next conference can build on it.
Prospective attendees, on the other hand, are typically biased against you. They need to know why your event is different from other conferences competing for their time and money. Your challenge with them is trust. And who better to build trust than past attendees? Make your previous attendees your "salespeople" by giving them the tools they need to promote your event and ways for prospective attendees to connect with them.
Something similar could be said of presenters. You have two audiences—past presenters and prospective presenters—with distinct sets of needs. Your communications strategy should reflect those needs.
Past presenters already understand the value of presenting at your conference. You don't need to sell them on the benefits. They are more concerned with the process. Make it clear to them that the process will be as easy—or easier—than the last time.
Prospective presenters don't care so much about the process. They don't have a point of reference, so it's all new to them. For them, your focus should be on the benefits of presenting.
You already understand that attendees and presenters have different needs and tailor your marketing and communications strategies accordingly. So why not do the same for loyal and prospective participants? Their needs may overlap, but they are not identical. As Jeff puts it, "Segmented marketing strategies work."
We argued previously that a soft deadline for submissions is better than a hard deadline. Now we're going to argue the opposite: that a hard deadline can be preferable to a soft deadline. We're not doing this to confuse you, we're just trying to point out that each has its own benefits and that your choice should depend entirely on your own unique situation.
Unlike a soft deadline, which is nothing more than an initial target for authors to shoot for, a hard deadline is the absolute final date and time you will accept submissions. You always have the option of accepting late submissions on a case-by-case basis, but as a general rule, authors who miss a hard deadline are out of luck—at least until the next call.
A hard deadline is better than a soft deadline because:
The key to a hard deadline, of course, is that you never extend it. Otherwise, you've just created a soft deadline.
Also, when setting a hard deadline, be painfully precise about the exact date and time of the deadline. It's true for any deadline, but especially true for hard deadlines: include a time—and time zone—along with the date. And if you're going to set your deadline for noon or midnight, don't use "a.m." and "p.m.".
One of the most basic decisions about any call is whether to set a soft or hard deadline for submissions. Unlike a hard deadline, which is carved in stone, a soft deadline provides authors with a target date to submit their work, with the understanding that the deadline will be extended.
A soft deadline is better than a hard deadline because:
A soft deadline is set under the assumption that you will eventually extend it, so don't forget to budget for the additional time. Also, soft deadlines work best when you don't publicize the fact that they are soft deadlines. People often produce their best work when crunched for time, so don't ruin your authors' creative edge by hinting the deadline will be extended.
Lastly, don't confuse a soft deadline with accepting late submissions on a case-by-case basis. A soft deadline should be applied to everyone equally, regardless of their circumstances. If you're leaning instead toward accepting late submissions on a case-by-case basis, be sure you have clear criteria in place for determining which submissions qualify for an extension. (But that's a topic for another post.)
Wondering what information you should include in your call? Here's our checklist of the key pieces of information every call should have. (You can really never have too much information, though, so consider these the minimum.)
For conferences, you should also include the conference dates and location. That way, people can determine whether they can attend.
Lastly, if the information for your call is on your Web site (which it should be), try to keep it all on one page. Not only does it make it easier to find information, it also makes it easier for people to print it all out.
You should never distribute your call as a Word file for people to fill out and send back to you. It might seem like a fast, easy solution—especially for smaller calls—but it will end up costing you more than you think.
Here are just some of the challenges you face using Word:
Using Word to distribute your call might make sense because it's easy to use, readily available and basically free (if you've already got a license). But once you start to receive submissions, the costs—especially time costs—really start to add up.
How many times have you heard someone say (or have said yourself): "This food is terrible. Try it."?
Well, that's the impression we got when we came across a recent call for abstracts that included 25 pages of instructions explaining how to use their online submission system.
Think about the message that sends to potential submitters. How many are going to look forward to submitting an abstract when they're being told—quite clearly—that not only is the first bite going to be hard to swallow, but that if they're selected, the rest of the process is probably going to be just as bad?
No submission process should require reams of instructions. But that's beside the point. The real point is this: Your call is often your first impression with potential submitters. Don't waste it turning people off.
The most important part of any email is the subject line. Think of it as the "packaging" for your message. Not only should it summarize the contents, it must also pique the recipient's interest enough to make him want to open the message to find out more.
So why do so many conferences send out call notices with uninteresting subject lines like "Annual Meeting Call for Speakers Now Open" or "Call for Speakers - Annual Meeting"? Are call announcements an exception to the rule? Of course not. While it may be easy to get people who are already excited about speaking at your conference to open up an email from you, those aren't the people you need to worry about. They've already committed to action. Instead, you should be focused on people who don't know about your conference or who might be on the fence about responding to your call.
Here are some tips for engaging those people:
Dr. Jody Byrne has received quite a few calls for papers over the years. One he received recently, however, really caught his attention... for all the wrong reasons.
As Dr. Byrne points out, "Calls for papers are supposed to inspire, encourage and explain. All this one does is bombard you with jargon, vague descriptions and non-explanations and then give you a bit of a headache."
Have you ever received a particularly bad call for papers? What stood out about it? What could have made it better?
Here at ProposalSpace we not only want to make peer review easier, we also want to provide a venue where best practices for peer review can be developed and promoted. As a first step, we want to pass along Dr. Stanley S. Siegelman's "Golden Rule" for reviewers from the February 1988 issue of Radiology:
"Most reviewers are also active authors. Referee the manuscript as you would like to have your own papers treated. Be thoughtful and helpful. Offer fair, thorough, and constructive criticism. The reviewer's tone should be friendly and supportive, never harsh or adversarial. Avoid derogatory, potentially offensive, or demeaning comments. We don't want to dampen the enthusiasm of budding young academicians. Test your critique for fairness and objectivity by asking yourself if you would be willing to sign it and send it to the author."
Reviewers in ProposalSpace are not only able to score proposals, they can also attach comments to them. The call administrator determines whether those comments are restricted (made available only to review chairs and administrators) or revealed to the proposal's authors. Regardless of how comments are handled, Dr. Siegelman's advice provides valuable guidance for making the most of every reviewer's effort.
