I mentioned earlier on IM to Phil of Skype Journal that I'm not impressed so far with the submitted talk proposals.
His response was "if you blandly solicit a call for papers, you'll get bland" and he impromptu wrote a revised version aimed at proposals which fell below the mark. But I think I'll call it the informal call for speakers as opposed to the formal one which may be downloaded here (PDF).
"Hi. Thanks for proposing a talk for the first eComm in Europe.
I need your help.
Your proposal was fine. I need more from you.
The people coming to eComm expect presentations that challenge their assumptions. That make them think. That get them excited, angry, hopeful, engaged.
No thinly veiled adverts. No self-congratulatory bragging. Nothing that would make you turn the channel if you were watching it on TV.
This is a thought leadership event. This is your chance to ask heartstoppingly challenging questions. To provoke fistfights in the aisle. To make VCs open their wallets. To change how we think about the worlds of talk, conversation, relationships, telecom. To share a long view vision. To disrupt cabals of power. To shake up government regulators and expensive suits who lobby them.
I need you to give the best talk you've made in your life. I need you to be bold, because we need audacity. I need you to be insightful because we need truth.
Please re-read your talk proposal. Maybe read it aloud. Ask yourself if this is your best. Will it make you proud? Will you earn polite applause or a standing, cheering ovation? I'm only saying this because your proposal didn't rock me.
What makes you angry? What is stupid about the way things are? What could the future look like if only we had the heart to make it so? What are people doing to revolutionize how people talk with each other? What is holding us back?
Please help make this a gathering to remember. Rethink your proposal and send it to me.
Thanks. Lee"
