Interview to Jan-Jaap In der Maur, event moderator

What characterizes a good moderator?

A great moderator is a very sensitive person, a person who is open to the signals of others. There is a very curious balance when talking about the characteristics of a moderator. On the one hand, a moderator has to be a leader, because if he is not a leader no one will follow him and the defense will be a disaster. On the other hand, he must be a person who is there for the people in the room and not for the sake of limelight.

What you also look for in a moderator is charisma without ego, which is an odd combination. Most people who have charisma have a very big ego, and most people who have a small ego don’t have as much charisma. As the market has become more professional, we have seen a shift from the traditional moderator who wants to be the center of attention to the professional who is on stage to help without seeking to hog the spotlight.

How does the moderator’s intervention make an event better?

Without a professional moderator, the only thing at the event will be a show. There will be a script and information will be sent from the stage to the room. That’s all. What a moderator does is make sure that the information and learnings actually get to the people. If I tell you a story, the story is sent from me to you. But, through the moderator, you’re looking for the attendees’ brains to open up to the story, digest it, make changes, and so on. So moderation is about consolidating the learnings and making sure that everyone is, face-to-face and psychologically, in the room.

People want to be seen, heard and liked, so you have to show them that you know they are there and really connect with them.

How should the moderator interact with the audience?

That depends on the group of people you are moderating the event for, but there are a few rules that apply to any of them: on the one hand, at any event people want to be seen, heard and liked, so you have to show them that you know they are there and connect with them. On the other hand, if you want interaction at the event, you have to be the one to start it.

The event moderator must open up and interact immediately. A great moderator constantly observes what’s going on in the room: what’s the mood? Are people still connected? If they are not, something must be done to reconnect them to the stage or to each other. This is a profession of experience: the more you do it, the better you get at it; it takes constant practice to figure out what works for you as a moderator. It’s about constantly working with instinct, observing, building trust with people; and people will only follow you if they trust that you are there for them.

Considering that in the last 10 years we have witnessed a digital explosion that makes it difficult for attendees to focus on events, are there characteristics that moderators have had to foster over the last few years to capture the audience’s attention?

Yes, absolutely. Today, the public wants to be in charge. If you look at democracies, 10 or 20 years ago we trusted our government. We don’t do that anymore. We want the government to listen to us, to talk to us, to let us tell them what we think would be a good idea. This is the same with moderation. Ten years ago you could just say to a room full of people: “stand up,” “sit down,” “do this,” and people would do it; but they’re not willing to do that anymore. They want to be part of what’s going on, so we have to constantly be aware that the people in the room, the participants, really want to participate.

We have to be open to it and be flexible in the program if the room says no to what we have organized and wants something different. The script is no longer the Bible, it’s just a suggestion of where we might go. That’s what makes our work interesting. But it also means that there has to be someone on stage – the moderator – who can make split-second decisions. If you’re talking and you realize the room is falling asleep, you have to act. Ten years ago we would have let it go, and now we know we have to change things to get people interested, to help the speaker reopen that connection, to do something interactive.

The moderator is not just the master of ceremonies running the program, but, in part, he is the program

This explains why it is so necessary for the moderator to know the briefing of the event beforehand…

Yes, of course. And I would even suggest bringing in the moderator before the program is finalized to see where in the program we can find moments for interaction, where the moderator thinks problems might arise…. We moderate. We’ve done this thousands of times, so, if we look at the program, we can immediately say: “probably at this point people will start to get bored, so we have to do something here to entertain them.” The moderator is not just the master of ceremonies running the program, but, in part, he is the program. He must be very well prepared and understand why the program has been planned in such a way, who the target audience is and what their concerns, problems and challenges are.

In addition, also in recent years, we continue to have the same frustration: we are looking to change the event industry, which is made up of 70% presentations, 20% coffee breaks and 10% debates; and probably more importance should be given to debates and coffee breaks and less to presentations. Have you seen any changes among your clients in favor of these new trends that we should follow in the organization of events?

Yes, it is changing, but slowly. We used to create programs based 100% on the speakers and nowadays they are still the first thing we introduce in the program. We should stop doing that. We should really start from scratch and then start building programs around the ideas we want to address: what do we want people to learn? What do we want to change? And then ask ourselves: what do we need? The speaker should be one of the options to choose, but not the most important option.

Why do you recommend putting the moderator in contact with the speakers before the event?

If I don’t understand the speaker’s core message, I can’t present it well, but if I really understand it, I can do something within my introduction and interact with the audience to bring that speaker to the attention of the audience. That’s why it’s so important for the moderators to establish prior contact with all the speakers. In this way, we will be able to see if there is an overlap between speakers and their messages and report this to the organizer, so that we can propose alternatives in the program to make it take on a more coherent form.

What is the future of AI in moderation?

Moderators will be using a lot of artificial intelligence to support their work to get information about the target groups and to analyze what’s going on in the room. I’m pretty sure we’ll be using artificial intelligence more to study the room and find out if people are still happy, to find out if the message is getting through… things like that. But the more interesting question to me is: will the moderator be replaced by artificial intelligence? Will there be an avatar on stage? I don’t think so.

The more human-level interaction is required, the less likely it is that AI will be able to take over. The script may be announced by an avatar, but people will really need to talk to each other, listen, build trust, feel each other’s emotions…. I am convinced that we are a long way from AI taking over all the subtle aspects of human behavior.