Moderator Debrief

What were the objectives

Create the leading thought space for the most senior investors in clean energy and the carbon markets, 4, 4

What can be done differently:

  • Can do a lot more
  • We gave space to talk
  • Constructing the discussion & bringin it to conclusion
  • Summaries of respondent were hard to follow / poor
  • We just scratched the surface with panel discussion
  • We tried to capture a lot in 1.5h session
  • Got stuck on policy discussion

Celebrate the League Table winners, 3, 5

  • It was part of first evening, it was not part of overall event, needs to be represented in panels
  • Maybe bring up amount of money represented by guests

Provide the platform to enjoy and build the network… (build relationships), 4, 4.5

Change impression that Michael the only voice of knowledge in company & Demonstrate depth of individual talents, 2, 5

  • If Michael open & closes -> Michael = NEF
  • Shorter Keynote, give more profile to senior management
  • Trying to show -> company is bigger than Michael

to make it happen in a smooth way, to survive, 5

  • Good preparation with panelists, good to have conf-call in advance
  • Professional Master of Ceremonies made big difference
  • Having Emma & Margret added credibility

Raising profile of NCF with NEF clients, 2, 2

  • No officially part of objectives
  • Should it be joined branded event?
  • Would have been nice to have NCF marketing material there

Establish a distinction in the conference space, be in the conference space and find a niche, 4.5, 4.5

What worked?

  • Stage setting, lighting during day & evening
  • Schedule was good
  • Dim Sum Friday morning break was great
  • Format at tables: discussion at tables, they got engaged
  • Good to have hotel room for Guy
  • Training Sessions worked, dress rehearsal worked, some Staff seemed a bit panicking
  • Professional microphones -> gives a professional impression, “this is a slick operation”
  • Good timing
  • ML’s presentation from guest perspective was excellent to set stage. Good visuals, story, engaging.
  • Dropped barriers: relaxed atmosphere
  • ML briefing of external moderators (M. Doyle) for 30 mins was very helpful in giving context
  • Setting up the session calls worked well - perhaps send out invite earlier however, do in actual calls in the week before the Summit

What didn’t work

  • MLs process with his presentation wasn’t good
  • MLs presentation needs to be quick 30 minutes, link keynote into other panel discussions
  • Discussing questions on Wednesday midnight was not good, no trust from Michael that they are ok.
  • We did not leverage the fact sheets
  • Nametags were to small
  • Table hosts didn’t have time to prepare for questions
  • Respondents: did a good job, but it was summarizing noise, nothing essence,
  • At the back you fell along way from home
  • We should have communicated much more that whole event is Carbon Offset
  • The desktop was almost too detailed to give good briefing for the moderators
  • Factsheets were not what she was expecting - was looking for something one page, much simpler, much more focussed on the key issues (not so Left Brained charts charts charts)

What could be differently?

  • Table hosting: You get better with age. The table hosts were more scribes than table facilitators.
  • Different tables with different perspectives: role play
  • Ask Advisory Board for input for next year
  • Give more value for sponsors ?
  • Make it more of a new energy feel: modern feeling
  • Inform the moderators that a make-up professional is available, and if they are interested to arrive 45 minutes before they are meeting their speakers
  • Use the screens behind and simultaneous video to identify the speakers
  • Ensure all moderators have phone numbers of all speakers, and vice versa (so they can get in touch if not on conf call)

Comments from Conversation with Gina Domanig (Panel member)

1) After asking speakers to be there 30 mins early, she (M. Doyle) was 20 mins late because of "doing her make-up"
2) Asked opening question of Gina - very directive and closed vs.and the rest of panel as open "gee what do you do"
3) Her questions for the panel showed that not prepared - asked Gina questions that are not relevant to what she does
4) Spent the time before the panel talking to the Citibank
5) Never got the questions and prepped the panel

Net net - Gina felt that the moderator could have done a much better job at making the speakers look good.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License