Iβve been hearing the tired slurs against βsage on a stageβ model for 20+ years. Only leftist education ideologues with more abstract ideas than communications experience take them seriously. Person on stage is just a method like any other. Good for some things, not for others.
Conversation
I like the FooCamp / BarCamp unconference model the most personally. Anything with less interaction shouldn't be focused on speakers, but booth oriented (CES, etc.) or a series of lightning talks.
1
4
My theory is that it's usually about sponsors buying stage time as an advertisement and conference producers needing that money to make the model work.
1
Aaronβs original comment referenced the βdead pedagogical toolβ view... thatβs a big tent including everything from K-12 and units to church sermons. Business/industry conferences are a narrow slice. Pay-to-play quasi-sponsor talks etc are an even narrower one...
3
1
Frankly for any deep topic where I know little , Iβd rather shut up, stay in my seat and listen to someone on stage who knows what theyβre talking about. Which is not to say I donβt also like other formats for other things.
1
2
I'd rather watch them + motion graphics on a video at home. If I go to a conference, I want to talk with people. If I go to school, I want to talk with people.
1
You have preferences. We all do. They are only one factor among many.
1
1
Does something about them on stage add to your experience or is a video of the same talk just as good?
1
Depends. Live and recorded are two sub-media that are apples and oranges for me. Farther apart than say twitter and Facebook
1
How do you experience the major differences?
1

