Chris Lott

In a post about Marco Torres’ NMC Keynote today Gardner writes something that echoes a comment he left here yesterday. Today he writes:

I wonder if Torres’ frequent and heartfelt connections to Kathy Sierra’s presentation yesterday will help elicit and frame some of its more subtle depths. Just because someone is a dynamic speaker with a message they carry in much the same way from venue to venue doesn’t mean the person or the talk is superficial or inauthentic. If learning is self-help … or vice-versa … bring it on.

I can’t help but think this is in part directed to what I wrote yesterday about Kathy’s presentation. And I can’t help but clarify.

Here’s the deal: stump speeches aren’t bad things. I’m not accusing Kathy of being inauthentic. And not really even being superficial. And I’m certainly not saying she is shallow! I’m dinging her (and very slightly, really) because I expect more from a keynote than a stump speech. Stump speeches are for the regular campaign stops… a keynote should be, in my opinion, a place to share something new and/or something that has been considered for that particular audience or organization. Is that really such a high bar? I’d prefer a keynote to be more like Obama’s 2004 Democratic Convention speech and less like the one delivered in Peoria, the 4th in two days.

Perhaps I would feel differently if I were asked to keynote speak as often as Kathy Sierra. Or perhaps I would simply choose NOT to give such addresses so often that the only way to keep up would be to repeat myself so often. I don’t mind connecting dots. In fact, that’s one of my favorite activities. But it’s really great to have a few new dots to connect!

The second problem with the stump speech is that—and this critical in this context—is that it’s really hard to be particularly convincing or passionate about something that you’ve said and presented many times before. In politics that’s expected. I don’t expect the stumping politician to wow them at every stop. If one has different expectations for a keynote, perhaps the same logic works there. But not only do I expect more, but Kathy’s presentation is about passion and kicking ass. Am I crazy in thinking that she might demonstrate more of that in the presentation itself?

I’m reminded of the disappointment of listening to a band live that I’ve admired for a long time for their studio recordings. It’s perfectly ok with me that live performances are a different thing, and perhaps in some ways lesser than the careful recordings, but if there’s nothing in the performance to compensate for those shortcomings or to balance out the differences, it’s lackluster and a little disappointing even if it doesn’t change my love for the band.

I like Kathy Sierra a lot. But her keynote wasn’t a great performance, it didn’t take any steps toward anything new, and it didn’t demonstrate the concepts she was promoting as much as I’d have liked. That might be OK in a breakout session… it just wasn’t that inspiring (despite being very much in tune and agreement with her impressive ideas) as a keynote.