In my June 1998 Editorial I expressed some exasperation with the developing habit of having papers at technical conferences read by authors with extremely poor skills in spoken English. My premise was that the prestige of reading such a paper may be high but that the audience deserved an intelligible delivery; the verbal presentation should be different from the version printed in the conference proceedings, otherwise the delegates might as well stay in their hotel rooms reading to themselves and then, maybe, end by comparing notes at dinner.

Well, I detect a new trend at some conferences which I find ignoble, and difficult to reason.

A few years ago, in a different life, one of my employees was delivering a paper at a prestigious conference when a note from the session chairperson was passed to him. The note said, "Stop this blatant commercialism." Quite naturally the employee was totally flummoxed and the remainder of the paper was an off-the cuff prýcis of the original. Embarrassing for him and his audience. In that particular case the paper had already been vetted by the papers’ committee and was certainly not commercial in a marketing sense. Yes, it did talk about a product - but the product was the technology, and the technology was the product.

In that particular instance - if I had been in the speaker’s shoes - I wish I would have had the gumption (and I probably wouldn’t have) to turn to the delegates and say something like, "Mr. Chairman appears to misunderstand the technology in the paper and I am unable to comply with his request." After that I would like to think I would have left the podium. This case was exacerbated by the fact that the chairperson had also been the speaker’s supervisor in another life for him and, I believe, took advantage of that relationship in a "follow-on" manner.

Professional societies are usually cognizant about touting their professionalism by insisting that commercial activities must not be part of their events. It’s a fine line that is also walked by institutions like PBS where some things, some activities, could be interpreted either way. When a technical conference has a physical display area which is labeled as a "technology display" or a "poster" event it expects vendors to put up a small booth, man it and talk about the technology. The rules usually specify clearly that there is to be no selling, no price lists, no soliciting of any kind.

Some societies have built up a great dependence for their revenue from such activities and, of course, the vendors pay for the expenses of exhibiting, freight and handling, and staff to take the opportunity to show their wares - very purposefully with the hope of a sale. Everybody understands it is a fine line so most of the "selling" is quiet, or away from the exhibit floor.

Most conference papers have managed to exclude the presence of a marketing message and that, to my mind, is a good thing. But the strange thing is that the "Invited" papers, or "Plenary" papers seem to be developing some kind of commercial life of their own. At the recent ISSCC in San Francisco, for example, two out of the three plenary papers had a clear commercial "position" stated by the speakers. The messages were not blatant, but they were there.

It is difficult to understand who these messages were being directed at. The vast majority of the delegates were circuit designers who have no power in determining a standard to be adopted, or choosing between marketing options. It might be used as a reprint marketing tool by the speaker’s organization: In the fashion, perhaps, of if it’s said in an ISSCC paper then it must be so; but that doesn’t seem to me to be terribly relevant. But I think the message is directed at a particular group: The group that includes me in their number! The media.

There is no doubt that the press has some power; nobody, I believe, could tell you how much or even how to measure it. In choosing to cover, or not cover, a story the reporter or editor clearly filters information to the reader. It is cynical to think that we do that entirely well, or entirely poorly. I certainly got the messages that were sent in these papers, so part of the target audience was listening. But reading published stories about those papers it seems clear that the messages didn’t get through to others, or was ignored. Which, I don’t know.

I do know that I don’t like this practice.

By: Paul McGoldrick
Sr. Technology Editor, EDTN

Analog Main | Product of the Week | Columns | Editorial | Tech Notes

		Click here to get your listing up.