I always like to focus on the goal of something, before considering whether it should be changed. At the core, Ignite is a venue for getting 5 minutes, to talk to 20 slides, about an idea the speaker is personally passionate about, with the possibility that that passion will spread from the speaker on stage out into the audience. Everything else, and I mean everything else, is window dressing.

Awards/props: superfluous at best, and undermining to the goal at worst.

Venue: Cost considerations dictate venue. Having been a part of venue selection for similar events myself, it’s really, really hard to get a venue of the right scale that meets all of your venue requirements, for a price that fits in the budget. It’s that simple. The only fix to your problem list is to increase the budget. That can come from only two sources: more sponsors and/or ticket sales. Given Ignite is 3 times a year, sponsorship money is probably maxed out, so ticket sales are really the only answer. Personally, I’d be in favor of a nominal ticket price of $10 (max). Make sure it’s on par with the cost of a night at the movies, and people will still come out to support the event. Going back to the goal of the event, if there is no audience (which is why having it be free is a very worthy goal), the event is a fail. Finally, regarding venue, it would be my preference that the same venue NOT be used repeatedly, because then you get a case where a city feels they own the event (as we saw a bit with Tempe). If Mesa is the only viable location…that’s a venue fail.

App Process: No one likes filtering. It’s the reason open technology has the momentum it does today, and why Microsoft has a big bulls eye on it’s chest. Apple’s App store is coming under scrutiny today, for the same reason. So, with that, the app process needs to be open to everyone. However, since a presenter’s idea probably will not be selected, it shouldn’t take hours to create a submission. High effort for submission is itself a filter, which should be avoided.

Voting: The voting process is complicated, lengthy, and takes a lot of effort by those responsible. Comparing it to sports, it is the complete opposite of the NCAA college coaches poll, which is truly a popularity contest. The current Ignite process is robust, although specific results are closed. The community simply needs to have some trust that the judges are worthy of being judges. If I were to suggest any change it would be in publicizing who the selection judges are, and by what means, if any, they were chosen to be a judge. The process used by the judges is open.

Finally, you know I’m opening a coffee shop pretty soon. Wanna guess where that idea came from? That’s right, a part of the idea came from Austin Baker’s Ignite 1 presentation on coffee shops. He doesn’t get all the credit, but his presentation was certainly a nudge.

I always like to focus on the goal of something, before considering whether it should be changed. At the core, Ignite is a venue for getting 5 minutes, to talk to 20 slides, about an idea the speaker is personally passionate about, with the possibility that that passion will spread from the speaker on stage out into the audience. Everything else, and I mean everything else, is window dressing.

Awards/props: superfluous at best, and undermining to the goal at worst.

Venue: Cost considerations dictate venue. Having been a part of venue selection for similar events myself, it’s really, really hard to get a venue of the right scale that meets all of your venue requirements, for a price that fits in the budget. It’s that simple. The only fix to your problem list is to increase the budget. That can come from only two sources: more sponsors and/or ticket sales. Given Ignite is 3 times a year, sponsorship money is probably maxed out, so ticket sales are really the only answer. Personally, I’d be in favor of a nominal ticket price of $10 (max). Make sure it’s on par with the cost of a night at the movies, and people will still come out to support the event. Going back to the goal of the event, if there is no audience (which is why having it be free is a very worthy goal), the event is a fail. Finally, regarding venue, it would be my preference that the same venue NOT be used repeatedly, because then you get a case where a city feels they own the event (as we saw a bit with Tempe). If Mesa is the only viable location…that’s a venue fail.

App Process: No one likes filtering. It’s the reason open technology has the momentum it does today, and why Microsoft has a big bulls eye on it’s chest. Apple’s App store is coming under scrutiny today, for the same reason. So, with that, the app process needs to be open to everyone. However, since a presenter’s idea probably will not be selected, it shouldn’t take hours to create a submission. High effort for submission is itself a filter, which should be avoided.

Voting: The voting process is complicated, lengthy, and takes a lot of effort by those responsible. Comparing it to sports, it is the complete opposite of the NCAA college coaches poll, which is truly a popularity contest. The current Ignite process is robust, although specific results are closed. The community simply needs to have some trust that the judges are worthy of being judges. If I were to suggest any change it would be in publicizing who the selection judges are, and by what means, if any, they were chosen to be a judge. The process used by the judges is open.

Finally, you know I’m opening a coffee shop pretty soon. Wanna guess where that idea came from? That’s right, a part of the idea came from Austin Baker’s Ignite 1 presentation on coffee shops. He doesn’t get all the credit, but his presentation was certainly a nudge.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by tdhurst: How I’d Improve Ignite: http://ow.ly/B4Pe #fb…

1. I get you. I just know that doing the slides & preso took a ton of hours. If you require a bunch of time investment up front, you’re doing to drastically shrink the pool of applicants. One thing I wouldn’t like to see is the same people all the time.

2. I definitely support the no public vote. I’d be down for a clarification after choice. Don’t want to see who’s judging & all that. Just create more drama & think we have enough.

5. Still think it’d be tough. Not everyone would have people interested in continuing. Some presos are just fun. Some the presenter might want to do more & have nobody interested. Would you want to see all 18 expanded? Gangplank’s already got good stuff at brownbags too. I get the idea but don’t see an easy way to pull off.

9. Ok, maybe you sold me on the prop. Random though… I’d have brought a Japanese chef’s knife.

1. I get you. I just know that doing the slides & preso took a ton of hours. If you require a bunch of time investment up front, you’re doing to drastically shrink the pool of applicants. One thing I wouldn’t like to see is the same people all the time.

2. I definitely support the no public vote. I’d be down for a clarification after choice. Don’t want to see who’s judging & all that. Just create more drama & think we have enough.

5. Still think it’d be tough. Not everyone would have people interested in continuing. Some presos are just fun. Some the presenter might want to do more & have nobody interested. Would you want to see all 18 expanded? Gangplank’s already got good stuff at brownbags too. I get the idea but don’t see an easy way to pull off.

9. Ok, maybe you sold me on the prop. Random though… I’d have brought a Japanese chef’s knife.

2. Not opposed to this in principle. Am concerned with the level of “butt-hurtedness” that may come out of it. Not that I care a lot for that concern, mind you.

3. I’d think that is a goal. But as you mentioned in your last post, that’s difficult to do. Still, it should not be — and i don’t think is — ignored.

4. Again, I agree in principle. It may be difficult — or expensive — to pull off. To me, it’s not critical to the success of the event for the vast majority. But I’m always up for a good after-party!

5. A good idea, but perhaps too much red tape? Fostering communication is one thing. Facilitating it is quite another. But connecting is made easier every day.

6. Not high on my personal list of priorities. A little too “inside baseball” for me. If anything, maybe a third party could do this? Not that I’d care much then, either.

7. Would turn into a popularity contest and yield predictable results. Seen it for 5 years with the Podcast Circle Jerk Awards. One of which I won.

8. Of course, I’m biased on this one. Yet I see the issue if half the presenters are the same-old-same old. Needs new blood, no doubt.

9. No need. Slides = prop.

10. I see what you did there.

2. Not opposed to this in principle. Am concerned with the level of “butt-hurtedness” that may come out of it. Not that I care a lot for that concern, mind you.

3. I’d think that is a goal. But as you mentioned in your last post, that’s difficult to do. Still, it should not be — and i don’t think is — ignored.

4. Again, I agree in principle. It may be difficult — or expensive — to pull off. To me, it’s not critical to the success of the event for the vast majority. But I’m always up for a good after-party!

5. A good idea, but perhaps too much red tape? Fostering communication is one thing. Facilitating it is quite another. But connecting is made easier every day.

6. Not high on my personal list of priorities. A little too “inside baseball” for me. If anything, maybe a third party could do this? Not that I’d care much then, either.

7. Would turn into a popularity contest and yield predictable results. Seen it for 5 years with the Podcast Circle Jerk Awards. One of which I won.

8. Of course, I’m biased on this one. Yet I see the issue if half the presenters are the same-old-same old. Needs new blood, no doubt.

9. No need. Slides = prop.

10. I see what you did there.