
On What Went Wrong at the End- More Reflections from ECTC11
August 30, 2011The number one question that I’ve seen come out of Event Camp Twin Cites regarding the technical side of things is, “Dude, what happened at the end?”
For those that did not see it, there was an almost comic meltdown of the Skype connections to the Pods. A kind and well written summary from Mitchell Beer can be found Here.
Some of this is conjecture, as we had to tear down and vacate the venue in very short order, so further testing could not be done. What follows is a rough compilation of the many things that contributed to not only the bizarre ending to ECTC11, but the Skype problems in general throughout the conference.
It has been asked, rightfully so, why didn’t we test all of this before going live. I can tell you that as far as we were concerned we did. They tested the lines, they tested the calls to all the pods, we tested the inputs, we tested the outputs, we tested the video inputs, we tested the video outputs. It’s a valuable lesson in something we all know- that there’s no such thing as too much testing, or taking those test too far. Sometimes it’s just not enough.
All of the following contributed and played off each other, and unfortunately it is the interplay that caused the most serious problems- most of which would not have shown up in anything other than full scale, live testing, with the actual participants in the actual rooms with the actual equipment. And probably the correct alignment of Mercury thrown in just for good measure. ECTC, in essence became the full size test. At least it’s an environment that’s theoretically set up for that purpose…
So here it is, to the best of my ability:
1) The number of pods- Last year there were two pods. In true Event Camp Twin Cities fashion, they pushed the envelope and tried to have 9. Eventually that number reduced to 7. Because of the number of pods, especially the original 9, it seemed impractical to have nine dedicated machines, and we decided to try the group calling feature of Skype and had 4 pods on one computer, and 3 on another. So having so many pods is why we started combining them on machines, which leads to…
2) Combining Pods 1- Combining the pods created a lot of noise on each of the two Skype machines. Instead of one person at a time, you now had bunches of people talking, waving, saying hi, and I think that Skype was clamping down on some feeds to “promote” others. It’s certainly the way it sounded in the headphones of the audio rig. The wrong pods were being brought to the front of the mix. It would make sense that Skype is geared towards what it’s generally considered use is- chat between one or more individuals. When individuals are chatting, we tend to wait our turn. The noise from some pods seemed to be canceling other pods out, much like a Google Hangout tries to “decide” who’s talking, and that can be overridden by someone typing to loudly. To make matters worse, there was the problem in #4, but we’ll get to that in a second. All of this would be fixable if only we had the ability to somehow mute the audio of some of the pods when one was speaking, which leads us to…
3) Combining pods 2- According to the Podmaster (as I desperately probed around for a solution to stop the madness), there was no way to mute individual pods on Skype. I do not know this for sure, as I don’t personally have the premium version of Skype with the multi-person chat. What I do know is that the recent redesign of the interface for Skype is a bloody mess, and if there were controls to mute the audio, good luck finding them. You’re more likely to accidently bring up and call your Aunt Judy trying to figure out the right combination of hidden rollovers and hieroglyphs.
It should be noted at this point, that in a further attempt to salvage the segment, we hung up on all the pods and tried calling a couple of them one at a time. When we knocked it down to a single call to Amsterdam, though, their audio feed was clearly being cut in and out by the noise limiter on Skype. I am again not familiar enough with Skype to know if there’s a setting that could have been changed on their end, but it was again very obvious when listening via headphones. It may have been possible to overcome with some time, perhaps by having someone come closer to the mic on the computer and by having all other hush, but before we got to that point I was told we had Silicon Valley on the line on the other machine. When we connected on a single call to Silicon Valley, Mike appeared to be on a headset, and it sounded awesome. I plugged and unplugged the audio jacks on the Mac so I could talk to him- the drawback of routing the audio signal through the house was that we didn’t have a good talkback method, and we were all set to go back to him. Unfortunately, though, we just plain ran out of time. We had a hard out at 2pm, Kurt was wrapping things up in the room, and the decision was made to scrap it.
4) Pod instructions/Combining Pods 3- (sensing a common thread?) Despite meticulous instructions, and without throwing anyone under the bus, it seemed like every time we went to a Skype machine, at least one of the three (or four) would have their audio turned up on the Sonic Foundry feed. This contributed to the confusion, and exacerbated problems 2 and 3 because we couldn’t mute them. People still weren’t listening to the right feed, and the delay ate us alive. Furthermore, the audio in the room then contains the potted-up Skype audio, which contained the audio of the delayed webcast feed, which is now being sent back to the other pods. Yeesh…
5) Panic. I regret having to put this one in, but it’s true. When things go south, your mind is racing, and you try everything you can think of. Sometimes, though, the moment passes and it just wasn’t enough. You don’t think of a solution until the next day. Or the next week. It’s like that great comeback for an insult that you don’t think of until the jerk’s walked away.
I can’t imagine what it was like up there for Sam, and he kept his cool very well. The best description I heard was that he was the straight guy in a comedy routine that he didn’t know he was in. My suggestion in perfect 20-20 hindsight, however, is that when the first one wasn’t answering, we needed to just stop and wait to see how long it took them to respond. Discover their delay and deal with it. Some have suggested some kind of in-room clock or audio cue in dealing with delayed audiences, as continuing to speak (while a perfectly natural reaction) only adds to the confusion.
If an actual 30 seconds went by, which I know is an ETERNITY, then we’d know that something was wrong beyond them just being on the wrong feed. As it was, it felt like Sam would move on in what seemed to me to be less than 20 seconds, and then we’re suddenly being answered by the Pod he’d just left. He’d try and go back to that one, only to be answered by the one he’d just moved on to.
So that’s what happened. Feel free to pick it apart and tell me what I may have missed. And if you know where it is, for the love of God please share where the mute button is in Skype.
Otherwise, my recommendations coming out of this are:
1) Reduce the number of Pods if at all possible to 4, and put them all on their own machines. 4 inputs is where the lowest levels of video switchers tend to hang around, so you can have a dedicated switch just for flipping between Pods for not a lot of money. That switch then sends its signal to whatever your main video switcher is. If you need to scale up, scale at that point and get a bigger Skype switcher, but I really feel like 1-1 machines might be imperative to making this all work.
2) Maybe to reduce noise, perhaps you give “voice” to the leaders of the pods and give them a headset? Just spitballing… It might overcome the limitations of combining pods.
3) If the machines are separated, your audio feeds will need to be separated, so again your going to need more channels on your audio mixer, or a completely separate mixer for the Skype machines. Either way, it gets you individual control over the audio feeds, and you can mute whoever’s mixing margaritas in the background.
4) Did any of the pods notice they were being fed the main video feed instead of looking out the I-Sight cameras in the MacBooks? What’s your feedback on the video quality, other than any buffering or obvious Skype-related things? I’m still experimenting, and if I figure it out I’ll share. We may try it again at Event Camp Europe. Suffice it to say that it’s remarkably low tech and inexpensive, and I think could be a really nice key to making this all work.
5) It should go without saying, but I will. When it comes to trying new tech, try and emulate the final use scenario as closely as possible during testing. We thought we had, but clearly there were factors at work that we didn’t anticipate. At least now you know to…

Brandt,
Very interesting insights. Not sure I agree with limiting the pods to a max of 4, but I understand where you are coming from on that point.
On the bright side, no one died and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. That makes it a success!
Greg
“Despite meticulous instructions, and without throwing anyone under the bus, it seemed like every time we went to a Skype machine, at least one of the three (or four) would have their audio turned up” Without throwing anyone under the bus? You just threw EVERY pod under the bus with that statement. The very idea of using group calling was a huge mistake. And THAT was never tested. The Pods were called individually for testing. Are you suggesting that each pod was to sit in a room and listen to feedback for 5? 10? 15? minutes before switching back to the main audio. We tried that in Philly…..and it was painful. Thanks for the hard work, but the finger pointing is against the theme of the event.
Hi Jeff,
I’m not sure what you’d like me to say here. You’re clearly pissed about the experience, and my guess is that it has a lot more to do with the whole two days than the last 15 minutes. I’ve been asked to detail what went wrong, and I’m attempting to do so, and yes with as little fingerpointing as possible. I made a very long list of what went wrong, ONE of which was pods not following details to the letter. Would you rather I name names? OK, so it wasn’t the Philly pod. Now it’s one or more of the other 6. I’m not sure what’s gained by that knowledge. Should I just ignore that part of the “what went wrong?” Because it happened and it’s true. This is the first I’ve heard of any feedback issues, so if that was a problem I’d love to hear more details about it and get to the bottom of it.
Brandt, I am not pissed at the whole two days. I am not pissed at all. It was an overwhelmingly positive experience. And, as a production professional, I can relate. You seemed understaffed and against some serious challenges. But I think that above all else, the plan was a bit doomed to failure. The pod experience is great, but the communication comes through in drips. And you flow in between states of connected, confused, and lost. My point is…. that if you try to take yourself out of the main session and imagine yourself in a pod, huddled around a webcam, with feedback blaring. Now imagine (days later) reading a blog, putting the blame on your fellow pod-sters (regardless of location). No hard feelings. It is an experiment and I share the spirit of experimentation.
Brandt, first let me say thank you for giving me a second chance on my previous (not posted) response…it did not communicate well what I was trying to say. I will try again now.
From my perspective as a Pod leader there was nothing comedic about the way the day ended. I can see how someone from the outside watching it would find it quite humorous, however as a Pod leader it was just a bitter and disappointing end to two days of zero engagement with the overall event. I invested a lot of time and energy and even a bit of money putting the pod together. In the end I was embarrassed. I told everyone how engaging the experience would be and what it turned out to be was 10 people watching TV together. Kudos to us for creating our own fun…we had a blast just hanging out and getting to know one another.
I take sponsorship and my sponsors very seriously at my events. It breaks my heart to see so many people and organizations who donated time, products, services and money get the bad rap for what went wrong. To see technical disasters as the fault of the sponsors when what clearly went wrong was a lack of proper planning. Should we blame Skype because there was no testing being done ahead of time to see if it would actually work the way they wanted to use it? We showed up at the venue and set up all our equipment (donated by Dyventive) and spent about 30 seconds testing a one to one Skype call. Yet this is not how they planned on using Skype. Why did we not test a group call? That is like testing to see if you phone makes a call by turning it on but not actually placing a call.
It was clear early on in the first day that things were not going well and the schedule was falling apart. It was also very clear the first groups to be ditched were the pods. First it was, “there’s no time to Skype you in, we’re behind schedule”. Then it appeared they could not get things working properly or perhaps it was the delay or maybe just more scheduling issues but we were tossed aside again in the afternoon. We were promised much more engagement the second day. Again, this did not happen. I finally found out we would be skyped in at 2ish ET. Well, you can see what happened there on the “comedic” video.
Perhaps the lesson to learn here is, if you want to plan an event, any event but especially one for event planners, you should hire an event planner and then listen to their expertise and heed their advice. Most of the issues were simply due to very poor planning. Hell, we were told the event would end at 5:00 EDT. Imagine our complete surprise when the event ended two hours early with no explanation to us.
But I think a huge debt of gratitude belongs to those sponsors who tried their best to work within a screwed up system and showed their support of the industry and a willingness to perhaps look not so good for the sake of innovation.
You’re very welcome and if there’s anything else you want to share on the tech side (or otherwise for that matter) on the experience of the pods and how planners and tech folks can make it better, let me know and we can chat some more! Full disclosure- I held Traci’s original post that she mentioned in moderation and talked to her over the phone to clarify a few things. We could have gone round and round in the comments section, but sometimes it’s a hell of a lot easier to just pick up the phone. Thanks again Traci, and I really do value your input, probably more than you know.
ha! my takeaway from this discussion is pick up the phone first…then comment. Must remember…must remember…must remember.
Brandt,
I have to say, THANK YOU for sharing all of this extremely valuable information that you learned from Event Camp Twin Cities. Posts like this are pure GOLD for those of us who want to learn what to do and what not to do when venturing into new technological territory at events.
Thank you for your service in the trenches and for being so generous with the knowledge that you have gained. It’s truly people like you who will help to take our industry to it’s next evolutionary level.
[...] On What Went Wrong at the End – More Reflections from ECTC11 [...]
[...] On What Went Wrong at the End – More Reflections from ECTC11 [...]
Quick comment- I think our Pods largest frustration was the lack of planning and communication. This technology is not hard and it is not innovative. But it can be fun and interactive and I was so disappointed for my sponsors and others in the pods. As Tracie said it did cost money and we were never brought in until the last segment of the last day. Pretty inexcusable if you ask me. We were not really pods but viewing parties. My feeling is you really need a foundation before you can experiment. Then it is okay to fail. Next year we should have this all ironed out. We had a great call with all the pods and Sam and Lindsay this week. I got to bitch with the other pods and Sam listened. We all felt better after.
In the past EventCamps I have organized the production-(NYC/Chicago) I made sure we had one person in charge running the live production and one running the online production. For example year in Chicago I did the pre-production and hired Mari Kimora who handling the onsite show flow and Mike McCurry followed the online feed. Then this could be fed to Glenn Thayer for the live stream and who ever was doing introductions. Seemed we didn’t have a unified communication between the confusing game, the streams but we did have Emilie Barta who kept promising to try and get info back to us. She just didn’t have it.
Onward!
m