• Marketing Mag Website

  • Marketing Blogs

PubCamp Melbourne: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

this article
  • Page 1 of 3
  • 14
  • 14

I'm Scott, the editor of marketingmag.com.au. If you want to contact me about anything, site-related or not, please send me an email, or alternatively start following me and marketingmag on Twitter or Plurk. Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Advertise with us

So now that the dust has settled somewhat on the Twitter orgy that was PubCamp, here's my take on Melbourne's proceedings. And while I'm not as damning as David in the forums, it's not all back slaps and high fives.

The Good

The Venue

The Rydges venue served the needs of the conference pretty well all in all. During the regular conference sessions the room was large enough to accommodate the crowd but not cavernous, the stage with the presenters was elevated enough to draw focus to all the right areas (the speakers), and during the unconference sessions, the smaller divided rooms provided the sorts of intimate settings that enabled real debate. The beer flowed like ... well, wine I guess, and aside from the biscuit shortage, I think most would agree that the venue got most of the stuff right.

The Format

I loved the mix between traditional presentations and the unconference sessions later on. Some big ideas were raised in the presentations, and some of those really warranted closer inspection. When the hall was subdivided up later on, some of those interesting debates were picked up on again in a setting more conducive to debate and, god forbid ... conversation.

Twitter

You'll see this one appear lower down on this list too, but there were some real positives to the integration of Twitter at the conference. At its best, the platform allowed an interesting meta-debate to take place parallel to the main event. It was great, for example, to see live feedback about the short presentations, as this part of the event was thoroughly broadcast otherwise. Quick note though: please not so bright the Summize feed behind the speakers' on the panel. Drew attention away from the humans (Twitterers are humans too).

Presentations

Stephen Collins, thank you. Thank you for talking way too fast. Sure, I would have loved to have heard some more syllables, but the dynamism you brought to the whole event was great and it's clear you're digging beneath the level of Internet History 101 to ask challenging questions about the very nature of interaction today, and about the kinds of ways we might be trying to get our place in those interactions right. AcidLabs has been added to the Google Reader and I will be following @trib with interest.

Bronwen Clune, thank you. You are clearly right in the middle of this, not just coming to the table and feeding off the scraps. It showed in your depth of thought around the issues here, and while I didn't exactly agree with everything you had to say, your conviction and insight were well worth the trip across town.

Stephen Mayne, thank you. Too often presenters leave the lectern having given little of themselves, so it was great to hear you talk openly and candidly about your experiences with Crikey, The Mayne Report and MSM more broadly. Something to note for all presenters: it's ok to be yourself, to talk about your own experiences, to be personal. In fact, it's better to be personal.

  • Article links
  • Article links

14 Comments

Media Hunter
  • Wrote on 25 Jun, at 08:29PM
Scott

I wasn't at Melbourne PubCamp but it believe this review could have been cut and pasted for the Sydney event. Spot on summary and analysis in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more on the debate re: old v new media. It drove me to post my own rant after Sydney.

Having said that...the participants and audience for this event are really at the bleeding edge of Web 2.0 ad social media thinking in Australia and so there is bound to be some rough and ready debate. While many of us believe in this technology and direction, lets face it, its still emerging and
far from perfect.

But there are some amazing opportunities and many of these thinkers will be right there in the thick of it.

Craig Wilson
mediamum
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 12:20PM
Pubcamp has initiated passionate discussion between all sides of media, which is what itechne sought to do. This conversation has continued long after the speakers and presentations ended. When Marketing Magazine chooses to put on events and charge disgraceful amounts for attendance (ie $1195 plus GST for your next one in July), it prohibits the average interested party from attending. In fact, it only encourages attendance from those wanting a free feed who can get their company to pay, and who dont really want to be challenged. The state of paid media, such as Marketing Magazine, these days is led by such people.
itechne levelled the playing ground by providing an open opportunity for everyone to get involved, and will do it again - as a FREE event to anyone wanting to attend (and yes, Im part of itechne as if you couldnt have guessed without this disclosure).
Editor | Scotland
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 03:10PM
@mediamum - please, if you want to go on the attack, make sure you are clear about who you are attacking. Apologies in advance for the rather long comment, but some much-needed clarity is due in this thread.

Marketing magazine is not putting on the Advertising and Media Summit 2008, we are working with them to bring our registered members the benefit of a $200 discount from the actual cost. I would think that this initiative would actually be seen as a step in the right direction by those 'average interested parties' (whoever this ill-defined group are supposed to be).

Relative to a free conference such as iTechne's PubCamp, I agree the price seems high. But then comparing the two events - as I think you intend to do by juxtaposing your positive discussion of one with your denigration of the other - seems rather irresponsible, especially considering the relative scope of both.

I don't have to defend the Advertising and Media Summit 2008 - I haven't seen their balance sheet and they don't pay my salary. But you don't have to be an accountant to realise that bringing in the chief creative officers of Time Warner and Goodby Silverstein & Partners from the US, as well as Harold Mitchell and 25 other presenters over two days has costs associated with it, for good or bad.

I also think you may have missed one of the key points in my post about PubCamp. This is not a bun fight between some evil axis of 'paid media' and the ground-levelling 'free media'. Both sides of this debate would do well to put down their fistfuls of mud and engage in reasoned discussion of the complex debate around the emergence of 'gift economies' alongside the existing paid-for content models.

Reducing this interesting and engaging area to some binary bitch-off between two entrenched enemies is woefully reductive and serves none of the parties involved. While there is demand for this model of content delivery, there will be those willing to build a business around the supply. To claim that attendees of the summit will somehow be incapable of critically engaging with the topics to be discussed is laughable at best, and downright insulting at worst.

Please @mediamum, go back and read my review of the Melbourne PubCamp event. You will find that I had plenty of positives to take away from the event. That said, I also think that the purpose of attending these events is to critically engage with the materials presented, and if sometimes this means that opinions will be given that not all agree with, then so much the better.

To claim that Marketing magazine is led by 'such people' is, I'm afraid, nonsense in the most wonderful Learian sense. As an existing masthead with over 20 years of history, Marketing faces the same challenge as many print publishers at the moment. Because our primary objective is to continue to provide valued (and yes, at times, even paid-for) content to marketers across Australia, we decided to invest heavily in this website as a completely free and open resource.

Considering the lengthy and (I thought) engaging discussion we shared at PubCamp based around the value you claimed to have gleaned from the pages of our magazine over the years in relation to your teaching, I found your comments here somewhat bizarre.

Let's lose the dogma @mediamum, roll up our sleeves and get stuck into the debate. You'll no doubt be disappointed to hear that I will be at the Advertising and Media Summit. As part of our ongoing commitment to bringing marketers valuable content, we'll be interviewing the speakers and getting them to provide their insights on camera and on this site.

Oh, and did I mention that the videos will be free?
mediamum
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 04:25PM
Scott, my apologies for making the link between Marketing Magazine and the Summit. With all the advertising and branding across the Marketing site, it was difficult to tell you werent associated. My points about the value of peoples input at such a ridiculously priced event remain, however. We are entering a new media environment, where cost of entry is not an issue. Its a pity the Summit, and other events, consider price to be a prerequisite to be part of the conversation, rather than just to watch the free videos of it after the fact. And Im not disappointed at all that youll be attending the Summit - at least youll get biscuits. :)
Grahamk
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 05:35PM
Why on earth should anything be free media mum? If time and effort is put in and its a business event then how can it be free?

Marketing is about marketing and commercial growth. Its not about saving the whales!
mediamum
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 06:07PM
After some consideration I think I need to clarify that I do believe Marketing Magazine does a great job. As we talked about at Pubcamp, I find your case studies in particular to be an incredibly valuable resource in my teaching. I apologise unreservedly if you felt I was in any way attacking the work of Marketing Magazine. It was not my intention.
jedwhite
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 06:09PM
I disagree with @mediamum on this.

I think events like PubCamp and the Summit are completely different beasts and the world needs both of them.

PubCamp is an alternative approach. It tries to bring together a community around the future of media, partly as a conversation and percolator for ideas and new faces, and involves a different set of voices and perspectives to something like ADMA or Ad:Tech or the Advertising and Media Summit.

It is not any sort of replacement for them, however.

I know how tough it is to put on a free event. Theyre free to attend, not to run. The folks at the traditional event companies are running them as a business and have every right to charge for the valuable content and information they provide. And there is clearly a good market for them.

PubCamp is just an attempt to try something different, not replace the other worthwhile events that are out there covering different topics in different ways.

Cheers,
Jed
jedwhite
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 06:15PM
PS Next time well try to find a venue that offers more biscuits.

Or, better still, that will let us bring in some pizzas or something, or charge more reasonable amounts for food. Rydges was better than the Marriott in Sydney though - the Marriott was going to charge us $1350 for chips and nuts on top of the drinks bill. Goodness only knows what they would have charged us there to add biscuits! :)
jedwhite
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 08:08PM
PPS Hey Scott, one last comment too. While I disagree with Jo about paid events being a bad thing, and I thought your blog post was a good and balanced wrap-up, I do agree with Jo that it looks bad to have heavy advertising for an expensive paid conference running on a blog post critiquing - or in David Gillespies case completely and totally panning - a free and open community event.

I have worked with enough ad-serving systems myself to know that there is no question whatsoever that this would have been an accident of the ad serving software on the website. But you gotta admit when things like that happens it looks pretty bad and gives completely the wrong impression.

Anyway, glad to have had you had the event and thanks for the comments and coverage. As much as just about everyone disagrees on which speakers and panelists they liked or found valuable (it was a very diverse audience), the feedback about the value of running PubCamp has been close to 100% positive (with David there being the only exception I can find so far).

The mission of the event is to foster understanding and dialogue between social and digital media, technologists, traditional media and publishers, commercial new media and futurists, and create a shared community of practitioners around the people who will create the media landscape of the future. As it stands today there are real gulfs between those groups, and PubCamp is primarily an attempt to get a conversation and meeting of minds going between them. Thats a tough challenge, but Im hoping that the feedback from the first two events can help make the future ones even better, and that its a step in the right direction.

Cheers,
Jed
markhjones
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 09:08PM
Scott - I was the moderator of the "old vs new" panel. First, a disclaimer since you attacked mediamum over that issue: iTechne paid my travel & accommodation expenses but did not pay me to facilitate or speak. I normally charge for those services, but did this one for free. My interest here is my passion for media in all its forms.

I respect your views and opinion, since thats what blogs are all about. But I think youre off the mark on your assessment of the panel. I totally disagree that putting so-called "old media" up in front of the "new media" audience was a "recipe for disaster," as you put it.

How many times have you heard a boring panel where everyone agreed with each other and simply sang the same old tune that everyone in the audience was expecting? Panels are meant to be dynamic and controversial. This panel delivered on that level precisely because of the dynamic Jed injected via the choice of speakers.

Theres a second, more important reason why I thought it was a success. Yes, this is an age-old debate. But as someone whos spent a long time in both print and digital media, I can tell you there are many digital natives in this world who are very quick to overlook (or spend time understanding) the publishing lessons learnt by traditional media. If you want to make money or be successful with digital media youd be a complete fool to ignore the basic lessons in good publishing that have been honed by "old media" over the decades. Disagree with them, sure. But first make sure you understand at a deep level why you disagree, then make your argument. Some of the angst that cropped up at PubCamp Sydney, for example, I felt were uninformed and purely emotional arguments.

So I thought the panel was a great chance to butt heads and learn something new on both sides of the fence. Judging by sparks that have continued to fly, Id suggest it was hugely successful.

Finally, if youll excuse the blatant plug and want to have another listen, an edited version of the panel features as this weeks episode of my AFR/MIS podcast, The Scoop: misaustralia.com/thescoop
Media Hunter
  • Wrote on 1 Jul, at 11:14PM
I have to say that I am confused as to why there has been so much debate, both at PubCamp and subsequently.

Firstly, the new v trad media debate was initially amusing to me but then mystifying as the passion levels rose. Its an evolving media landscape folks. There isn't necessarily a right and wrong camp. Both forms of media are interesting and both are imperfect. As a marketer, both are useful.

I could probably say the same thing about the "paid seminar v free seminar" debate. Both useful, both stimulating and both imperfect.

At the end of the day the true judge of who was right and wrong is the market. People vote with their feet and wallets.

One last observation. I enjoyed PubCamp and would attend the next event, but found it curious that less than 100 people (by my rough count) attended the Sydney event. This was for a free event in a city of almost 4 million. I would have thought here would have been more bums on seats.
Editor | Scotland
  • Wrote on 2 Jul, at 12:17AM
Wow - you nip out of the office for a bit and suddenly theres a conversation going - great stuff!

@mediamum - its all good. I just wanted to clarify our relationship to the Advertising and Media Summit and to make clear my position on the paid-for/free content debate (if we really have to legitimise it as a debate at all).

@jedwhite - thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree, theres space for paid-for events and free events, and its not a case of one winning out over the other. The work iTechne put into the smoothly-run Melbourne PubCamp event was evident and I especially enjoyed the mixed format of panel and unconference sessions. Ill be looking forward to the next iTechne event, so make sure you keep us informed and well let people know through our calendar.

Also, I totally take your point about the criticisms around PubCamp appearing next to advertisements for the Advertising and Media Summit being potentially misleading. Once again, I think this is more the case if people subscribe to an either/or view of paid-for/free events, but well chalk this one up to experience.

Ad serving online continues to be a fun and challenging space to be working in, so its nice to know that when situations like this arise, there is space for the community to debate it. Cheers for your thoughts @mediamum and @jedwhite.
Editor | Scotland
  • Wrote on 2 Jul, at 12:25AM
@markhjones - hey Mark, good to hear from you. Just quickly, I don't attack @mediamum over an issue of whether people are paid to attend conferences. You'll see that I actually argue for the validity of both business models surrounding events, not the ultimate triumph of free over paid or vice versa (see Jed's first comment above, with which I am in agreement.)

Look, I agree by your criteria that the panel was a success - it was dynamic and controversial. But I guess my question is then what is the overall goal here? To get people who disagree with each other in the same room so they can ... shock horror, disagree?

I agree that some of the arguments at PubCamp were a little angsty, and that this doesn't really help to drive reasoned debate. In fact, in my review post that is precisely the point I make about people fighting over terms like 'old' and 'new' media as if we somehow have to decide between them. As I said in the review, this is a "futile and ultimately rather boring confrontation," and I call for more reasoned and challenging debate.

But there's a bit of a problem here: perhaps engineering a deliberately controversial panel and then expecting nothing but reasoned debate is a bit of a zero-sum game. Ultimately we're in agreement though - less bickering and more challenging debate is the goal, and it's here that I defer to @jedwhite's last post above. It's a tough challenge, but nice to have people such as yourself and the iTechne crew stepping up to that challenge.

As for posting the edited panel discussion AFR/MIS podcast link, more power to you. I have added it to the hyperlinks at the end of this original article so that people may continue to follow the content and make their own minds up about the debate.
David Gillespie
  • Wrote on 2 Jul, at 11:59AM
Just wanted to pop 2 cents in there @jedwhite and should clarify that while I didn't draw value from the day, I would hope others did. The event was sold to me as a Web 2.0 meet up of sorts, and upon arriving it became clear from the panel that, aside from @Trib, it was a traditional media meet-up to discuss the challenges of Web 2.0, with the conference plying a spectator-sport tack. That is my own fault for not doing my research in advance, I heard about it and opted to attend on the day.

Scanning the comments I saw someone mentioned the Web 2.0-heavy audience, and perhaps this is where my frustration came from; if the conference had been pitched at us, nobody speaking (again excepting Trib & Bronwen Clune) would have had any idea what the hell we were on about. When the technological and creative capital is weighed heavier in the listeners than the speakers, in my book something is amiss. Again I am speaking about what i would have deemed valuable, and while yes it is monetarily free, you are asking people to pay with time. As we all know, we can earn more money, we cannot get those hours back, and it is to be respected as much as the almighty dollar.

Hats off to Itechne however for putting it on in the first place, credit where credit is due.

To have your say, login at the top of the page or register free and start commenting.