DISQUS

Chip Griffin · 1 year ago

Nice thoughtful piece on the events of yesterday. It is refreshing to see something well-considered to balance out the heated rhetoric that has been out there. I have yet to see video of the interview, but it sounds like the crowd had it out for her almost no matter how she conducted the interview.

dyerbrookME · 1 year ago

Sounds to me like the tekkie old boys' network now trying to groom Lacy because she didn't handle the childen of their new media revolution properly when they rebelled in the back of the room.

To me, there are three parties at fault here, in a very untrustworthy transaction that should have been the focus of your analysis:

the HIRING of what ostensibly is an independent and free media reporter from Business Week for what amounts to a public-relations job and service as a shill for the gaming industry at a gaming conference.

Thus SWSX, Business Week, and Facebook, have all lost their integrity with the public as media.

Although, apparently not their integrity as...games.

Prokofy

Colin McKay · 1 year ago

Thanks for this, Brian. It's always good to get both sides of the story - especially when a feeding frenzy takes lead.

Susan B · 1 year ago

No way, Brian. Sarah did a terrible job and as a PR expert, I think you know she needs to apologize. She was condescending in so many ways to both Mark and the audience it left me speechless.

I have four blog posts on this that I'd like to share here:

The Sarah Lacy Fiasco – The Bratton Perspective.
http://tinyurl.com/ythrkp

Sarah Lacy – Here’s How to FIX Your Reputation
http://tinyurl.com/237ybv

How to Conduct A Live On-Stage Interview
http://tinyurl.com/3ahclo

SXSW vs. TED – The Value of Preparation and Maturity
http://tinyurl.com/2e36yt

Thanks, Buddy. I know you were trying to smooth things over. A gallant attempt.
Suz

Crystal · 1 year ago

This totally changed my view on the interview. Thanks for the cute story at the end!

Mark Evans · 1 year ago

Having watched the interview via Viddler, it's nowhere near as the disaster some people make it out to be. That said, it was an interview that could have been much better. Perhaps the biggest issue is Lacy conducted an interview that she wanted to do as opposed to the interview the audience wanted, which explains why things got sour so quickly.

Personally, I question the call by SXSW organizers in having Lacy interview her friend, Mark Zuckerberg, because it calls into question her objectivity given they have a personal relationship. As much as you want to be 100% objective, it's pretty much impossible if the person you're sitting across from is your friend.

As an ex-journalist, I guess the other thing that disappoined me was
her lack of grace under pressure. I expected more from a person with her professional experience.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

Nice attempt at spin, Brian, but...

...as someone who's heard Sarah speak publicly a few times, I find it very hard to believe that all she cares about is whether her interview subject looks good.

Is that why she blabbers on about herself and her book everywhere she goes now?

Kristen Forbriger · 1 year ago

I'm sure there's a good reason why attendees have been so critical of Sarah, but it's about time someone presented the full story. From someone who watched it all go down from my couch via my twitter stream, I got this image of a cougar batting her eyes and talking down to an uncomfortable "boy CEO." I haven't had a chance to watch the entire interview, but your report indicates that there was much more value delivered.

If what you/she says is true about the plan SXSW had for this keynote (a business discussion) then I think someone else is to blame for the debacle that ensued. They either didn't know the audience would be full of geeks or chose to ignore it. Either way, it's not fair for her to take all the blame.

Thanks again for doing the legwork to get the other side out there.

By the way, I agree that Sarah has a successul future ahead... if nothing else, I think she's become a household name in certain circles.

Karl · 1 year ago

finding herself alone in front of hundreds of zealots? WTF!!! no, she found herself alone in front of people who expect something called an interview, not an interjection of me me me time. Her only reaction worth note was, when thinges were falling apart, to talk about herself. (paraphrased) those of you who know me know that I once threw water on Arrington? That's a comeback or valuable piece of commentary?!? No, that's an egotastic attempt at self redemption. No one cares if her feelings were hurt. she went in front of hundreds of people and did a horrible job. end of story

dyerbrookME · 1 year ago

Sorry, correction: not gaming industry, interactive media industry! Of course they overlap...

And now reading your blog for the 3rd time, I'm left a bit puzzled. It's Facebook and SWSX *together* that hired this journalist? Or just FB? Or just SWSX? Can you clarify that piece of it?

Prokofy

Mike M · 1 year ago

An interesting perspective and nice to have for someone not at SXSW but receiving all the tweets. After reading a number of write-ups and seeing some video, I think you are correct that the audience was misjudged.

The audience is developers and they expect a tech presentation and discussion. Having spent three years working on Intel Developer Forum, I've seen a bunch of these presentations and audience reactions.

Unfortunately, the misjudgment went further and all parties are guilty of not setting the expectation with the audience. If this critical piece of information was left out of the introduction, then what can we expect from an audience prepared for the typical fare. One last observation: the audience also has an obligation to act in a polite manner in public settings; if they were unhappy with the keynote, then they should have left the venue.

isotonic · 1 year ago

Brian, it's apparent from Sarah's twitter that you have an existing friendship. A little disclosure?

Peter Thomas · 1 year ago

Unfortunately for you Brian, Lacy gloated that her "Amazon rank is higher than ever" in the interview *just* after the train-wreck:

http://www.onlinevideowatch.com/tag/sxsw-mark-zuckerberg-keynote-sarah-lacy/

But you quote her as saying:

"At the end of the day if Mark looked good then that’s all that matters to me".

As others above have commented, nice try.

Andy · 1 year ago

If Mark is always a boring evasive interview then why bother with him? Surely there's more exciting and extroverted people from the company willing to talk? I know he's trying to style himself like Steve Jobs but he seems to lack that enthusiasm and warmth - but I know he's working on that with media coaching and it will probably improve with time. But if he's 'a tough interview' then tell him to keep his toys and stay home. I think Twitter enables drama queens to not just over-react but to churn their over-reactions together into one big stew. Keynotes with stars of this magnitude will probably always disappoint - I mean really what is he going to say that will truly be worthwhile that hadn't already been said over drinks the night before?

James Bruni · 1 year ago

Nice interview, Brian. You covered this better than Business Week, which had a lot of explaining to do in its own SxSW blog coverage.

lcreekmo · 1 year ago

I'm NOT a developer, though I do work in digital media. I'm not even a Facebook groupie, though I do have and use an account.

The interview was horrible. I think Lacy is a talented, professional person who didn't realize how such a casual style would come across in this venue. Perhaps SXSW bears some blame....but the Henry Jenkins/Steven Johnson keynote interview the day before was also "casual" but also fascinating and well done.

You have to make some translations to account for being on stage in front of thousands of people....no matter who is in the audience.

I do think the one good thing that has come out of post-interview press is this: Lacy DID ask, and get answers to, some good questions. But you didn't realize it at the time because of the other things going on.

DBx · 1 year ago

I guess I'm confused...

Why should the journalist interviewer take a bullet for the interviewee? I think that statement is indicative of the issue-- the people weren't shooting at Zuckerberg, they were aiming for her, but her reaction and subsequent comments makes it sound like she fell on a sword for him.

And Mark actually offered most of that new knowledge with little or no prompting, often in between her interruptions (esp. the "France" info with the awkward exchange about backstage agreements).

I think you bring up some important points, but your inability to talk about Sarah critically without immediately interjecting about her relationship with Mark speaks to the elephant in the room. They are friends, not professional acquaintances. Do you honestly think Tom Brokaw or even the twits on G4 hug their interviews?

I completely understand why she was chosen, I think it was an honest and probably good decision that worked in getting Mark comfortable. But we need to stop pretending that this was a journalism exercise. And so does Sarah. Through the entire interview she compared herself to Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes whenever she teased Mark about answers. But when she snapped back at the audience about "her job" it revealed that she was unable to be both his friend and a reporter. It would have been better had she been one or the other. Both is asking too much of her and the audience.

Michael E. Rubin, GasPedal · 1 year ago

When did this kind of rudeness become acceptable public behavior? It's not cute, it's not fun. In fact, it's downright despicable.

Don't like the content of a panel? WALK UP AND LEAVE. Blog about it, Tweet about it, but don't sit there and yell at the moderator. This isn't MST3K or your f----g dorm room, for pete's sakes.

Here's another example from another SXSW panel of an audience "revolt". It's just as unacceptable.
http://www.perfectporridge.com/2008/03/08/1648/

Just to be clear, I think side-conversations and Twitter back-channel is cool and adds a refreshing side-angle to public events.

But to carry on like a boor is just downright rude and unacceptable in my book.

Brad · 1 year ago

Just a slight correction. SXSW didn't "hire" Sarah, she was picked by Facebook to conduct the interview.

gamermk · 1 year ago

This really was a nice balancing act to the overwhelming negative reviews. I've submitted it over at Sphinn since I feel it's important that this side of the story is told too.

http://sphinn.com/story/33946

Bertil · 1 year ago

I think trying to make a geek-king more human is an error: Jobs, Stallman, Gates aren't; Linus might be, but it's far less relevant to this crowd then ‘(coding) style’, the real geek personality.

A “fireside chat” sounds as natural as a “chick flick” to this crowd: an hour and a half of odd situations where all the men are empty, incoherent tokens and women have all the attention and in spite of creating all the drama, force you to feel their suffering with cheap music. You should see Game theorists watching “A Beautiful mind”.

I understand why Mark wants to be more sympathetic then Gates, and I sincerely hope he won't turn out as isolated — but this experience won't help.

Sarah has a major case of female lock-out: too proud to admit she did wrong, too hurt to open to what people had to say — and unable to understand a situation driven by values foreign to her.

Thank you for offering both side of the story. I believe it is up to Mark to decide whether he wants to continue talk about what made him great, or to change, and talk about what he wants to be good at.

I don't think a great friendship was a problem in such an interview (he's not a political leader yet, and any one in the room can fully appreciate his decisions): the thing was replacing a keynote; she was here to help him talk. What was the problem was that Sarah could not think outside a connexion that had nothing to do with what people wanted from this interview.

Can my mom interview me? Yes, but she won't be a good report for my PhD defence; some of my friends could be, those with whom I talk shop. Not those with whom I have a big-boy crush.

dyerbrookME · 1 year ago

Brian said: "This keynote was designed in collaboration with SXSW. They wanted a conversational fireside chat that was representative of their friendship. Together, they decided that they would forgo Q&A in advance. They hired Lacy because she’s a “business” reporter, not a developer or a geek capable of asking technical questions."

Brad said: "Just a slight correction. SXSW didn't "hire" Sarah, she was picked by Facebook to conduct the interview."

Could we get some clarity here? Brian interviewed Sarah after the incident and came up with his statement that Facebook people "designed" this keynote "in collaboration with SXSW". "They hired Lacy". *They*.

Did they hire her? Who signed the check for the consulting fee? Or do you mean that it was just a "pick". But then, surely that has ramifications, too! A social media magnate gets to *pick* which journo from the old media he deigns to give an interview to?!

Please explain this for those of us watching from the cheap seats.

Prokofy

Anonymous · 1 year ago

I'm calling into question the validity of this controversial statement below:

"So here’s the real story.

This keynote was designed in collaboration with SXSW. They wanted a conversational fireside chat that was representative of their friendship. Together, they decided that they would forgo Q&A in advance. They hired Lacy because she’s a “business” reporter, not a developer or a geek capable of asking technical questions. They wanted a business discussion. But, since its SXSW and not the Web 2.0 Summit, they wanted it to be fun, lively, and engaging.

If anyone underestimated the audience, it was the conference organizers. That’s my opinion not hers."

Where did you get this information? SXSW doesn't "hire" anyone. And they did not choose Sarah Lacy. Facebook did. Even Facebook will tell you that.

Wendy Piersall · 1 year ago

Brian, I respect the hell out of you, and I also really have to state my opposing view on it.

I don't think Lacy did any favors for Zuckerman. She was condescending, cut him off, and made him look really bad. I *don't* think he looked great in the end, but he did look great compared to his interviewer. He basically repeated himself over and over again with each answer - quite honestly because I don't think he knew what the hell else to say.

She also did NO favors for women in tech, working hard to gain visibility and credibility in a male-dominated world. I was embarrassed for her throughout the entire presentation - and left wishing that a nervous, newbie blogger was the one up there interviewing Mark - at least I wouldn't then be wondering now if this supposed woman business leader in our field is sleeping her way to her interviewees stages.

Let me be clear after throwing that out there that I'm only saying this purely on watching this woman on stage from row 10. I think that what I and others are reacting to here are not as much the words they heard (which were bad enough) but also what her body language was saying; which were arguably louder than the words themselves.

It quite honestly pissed me off that she would handle herself so unprofessionally in that room. The conference was supposed to be about brilliant people in the tech industry, and I feel she seriously degraded that standard with her performance on stage.

avin · 1 year ago

very nice post, great to see someone getting Sarah's (and Mark's, for that matter) take on the story.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

She played with her hair and giggled like a nervous school girl for the duration of the interview. Her questions seemed like a personal evaluation of how much she could be worth if she could just convince this boy to marry her. hehehehehe, I love you, Mark. hehehehe, When is Facebook going public? hehehehehe, Are you going to make me sign a pre-nuptial agreement?

Bertil Hatt · 1 year ago

Maybe to summarise: I spent an hour wondering “Does he have a girlfriend?”

fourlittlebees · 1 year ago

SXSW is no longer about being a good technical conference, but about having the opportunity to be a "cool" kid for once. It's evident that the majority of the attendees are there to goof around, socialize, and go out drinking. If you want a serious tech discussion, you don't ever want to hear the CEO speak. You want the CTO, and any developer with half a brain would admit that.

What's even worse to me are the women who are calling her "unprofessional" or reference any mannerisms as flirty, blah, blah. Let's face it. Most of us would kill for her job. If I was offered a column at BusinessWeek and had a book coming out? I'd be pimping that every chance I got too. As would any of us.

This juvenile carrying on is nothing new at conferences, but at the point at which you are heckling a journalist in front of a CEO, who do you REALLY thinks looks bad in the end? The journalist or the gits in the audience?

Brian Solis · 1 year ago

WOW!!!! THANK YOU EVERYONE!!! I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to respond. I'm on the road heading back from SXSW. I will responded to each and everyone when I get back. I just wanted to take a quick minute to thank you for your feedback, whether or not we agree, your time and words are important...

Amy · 1 year ago

"Sarah Lacy, the person behind the journalist, so that we can have a genuine, honest, and sincere look at her world, both coming into this and leaving with her head up, spirits bruised, but diligence and perseverance stronger than ever."

This belongs in Cosmo Girl! not a tech blog. Seriously.

You would never see this kind of "reporting" if the interviewer was a man. A look at her world? Sincere? Bruised spirits?

Why stop there? Why not add a heart-wrenching half-tearful, half-hopeful glisten to her eye and a slight and not unattractive heave to her saintly chest?

The woman did a terrible job, acted utterly without dignity and she deserves the criticism heaped on her. For all I know, she always does a terrible job, but I had never heard of her before the keynote and certainly have no desire to learn anything more about her in the future.

I am, however, more than slightly disgusted to see her get a free pass because she's got breasts.

Francine Hardaway · 1 year ago

Sweet! Nice job, Brian. This approach is really typical of the new PR model of engagement with the customer. Lacy is your customer and you treat her with the utmost respect.

dyerbrookME · 1 year ago

Ok, just so I can keep all this straight with the new media and all. Re: "the new PR model of engagement with the customer. Lacy is your customer"

So, now did Sarah hire Brian as a PR agent? or was that just a figure of speech?

Anonymous · 1 year ago

As someone sitting in the room when this session went down, let me say that it was absolutely painful.

Brian, thanks for seeking out the other side of the story, but it doesn't begin to make me think I'm at all wrong to think this was an unmitigated disaster.

Sadly, knowing the "rest of the story" doesn't make me feel better because the rest of the story is that basically Facebook asked a reporter with very odd journalistic boundaries and horrendous moderation abilities to conduct a pre-scripted, likely rehearsed "fireside chat" covering topics and answers that could have just as easily been released in press release format.

Strangely, this background doesn't really help their case...

Jake McKee
communityguy.com

Brian Solis · 1 year ago

Just to be clear, Sarah is not a client.

Michael · 1 year ago

You hit on it, knowing your audience is a big part of this.

The thing about her friendship with Zuckerberg and her wanting to show people his personality, etc....OK, but what happened to the idea that journalists are the 4th branch of the government? When does 'friendship' come into this? When did impartiality give way to flaunting? I've had reporters who I know pretty well still refuse to let me buy them a drink or a meal, let alone hug me on stage...(Yes, you can say no to what a CEO asks you to do).

Sorry, man, realize it's a bit cynical but there's a higher standard for this.

Aaron · 1 year ago

everywhere I look lately she is blaming someone else for this event gone wrong. The problem was NOT the focus of the interview, it was the way she managed it. She needs to work harder and practice at publc interviews. It is an art. Being a good journalist doesn't mean you are a good interviewer. She lost control of the crowd and never appeared to have control of herself. Blame the crowd, blame sxsw, blame everyone by youself.

Cindy Royal · 1 year ago

I've attended SXSW for years, and none of the Keynotes are technical. They are usually familiar and informal, as when Jimmy Wales hosted the conversation with Craig Newmark in 2006. The audience has a developer constituency, but also consists of designers, students, journalists, executives, professionals, academics...anyone with an enthusiasm for technology.

I was at the Zuckerberg keynote, about 7th row, experienced it firsthand. Lacy was a terrible interviewer...period. People were annoyed by her style of not asking questions and talking about herself. However, I found the content of Mark's comments to be intelligent, providing a much better insight on his character and motivations.

Students in my Issues in New Media course blogged the event at sxtsu.blogspot.com, so visit to get their perspective.

SXSWi was amazing this year. They know what they are doing.

Susan Reynolds · 1 year ago

More of the story in this case seems like simply more of the story, not something that changes my take on it.

I'm not sure anyone could have done this sort of interview in a way that would have pleased everyone in the room, but put a flirtatious reporter twirling her hair and doing the "I'm so tight with Mark" shtick on-stage with a self-involved young guy like Zuckerberg and you've got a situation almost preordained to explode in a most unhappy way.

It's all about entitlement. The audience felt entitled to a conversation between two individuals of substance. What they got were two people who may have good qualities but who ooze their own sense of entitlement; in this case, entitlement to stardom.

The organizers seem to have felt that landing Zuckerberg meant they were entitled to stop there and let his fame/youth/reticence thing override a substantive presentation. They had to know that their audience would be disappointed - and in this case say so vociferously.

The reactions of all parties after the fact speaks volumes: not much of it involving the word "class."

dyerbrookME · 1 year ago

Susan Reynolds has had by far the best cultural take on this event. But there is still the problem of journalism.

I'm glad that Cindy weighed in here with the excellent point -- finally! -- that SXSW does not belong only to tekkies. So this barking mandate from all these male tekkies to "know your audience" and "play to the coders making APIs" is off based.

The crowd there by now a huge amalgam of new media users, bloggers, designers, artists, machinimists, etc. So the notion of some sort of constituency that is "entitled" to a memcache sort of discussion (as Scoble called it) is just that -- more entitlement-happyness from this constituency. They should have been told to simmer down, they'd have their Dev Garage in the next hour, and meanwhile, more broader questions about business *can and should be asked* of a social media magnate claiming to be worth a billion plus and claiming to have the attention -- and more -- of 60 million people. You don't get to just talk about memcache when you have that kind of power -- sorry!

And that's the moral of this story: it's not just that "power is shifting" as the blogger said linked below, it's that the old media and the new media consumers are failing to realize that social media is a corporate power like any other corporate power, and the fourth estate has to prevent itself from being subservient to it as it would to any other.

As we've now had spelt out many times, Facebook and SXSW *themselves* choreographed this show. Few seem to be unwilling to blame *choreographing itself* as the problem. The critique here, new-media style, seems to be about performance, about hair-twirling, or breaking the proscenium arch, and asking the audience to confirm a fact that the interview subject was stalling about.

Whatever Lacy's failure to gain rapport, or her tendency to use the occasion to pump herself, the fact is, when you have an impassive, passive/aggressive figure like Zuckerberg *not* answering questions, and making long, half-insolent, half-innocent stalls, it merely becomes a distorted mirror itself to reflect back the interviewer's struggles.

If you are going to teach journalism, however, I don't see that you can justifiably teach merely "performance". Leave that to the dramatics arts class, or the marketing class. You do have to teach the five ws. Lacy asked him if he thought he was worth a billion. He couldn't answer. So he's not. The crowd went wild at that stark realization.

Prokofy Neva

pix · 1 year ago

Thoughtful post indeed. My response ended up being a bit epic, so I decided to post it to my own blog and link it here.

Short version: If it could have been handled better, why wasn't it?

How do we as the SxSW community make it better going forward?

[personal note] I think Lacey's lack of professionalism and relies on her "feminine wiles" (so to speak) give women in tech a bad name.

jebworks · 1 year ago

Who cares! Aren't there more important issues out there to write about than a flirtatious chat between a young journalist and what seems to me a pretty self-centered young geek billionaire in front of a crowd of geeks with low social skills who need a few more years of life experience that might make them acquire some of them necessary to succeed in the world as more than tech geeks.
Pitiful, really but probably not unusual for this time of online voyeurism.

K.G. Schneider · 1 year ago

The number of comments referring to "this woman" or "that woman" creep me out. A journalist gave a softball interview to a rich white guy, and the audience acted like jerks. Gee, I want to go to SXSW next year... not.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

Since when is a bad interview on stage an excuse for audience members to behave like utter assholes? Sorry, but I don't get it. I don't care if you think this journalist was a "bad" interviewer or not; that's no excuse to act like an ill bred prick while sitting in the audience.

Or do tech people really think they should be carrying their ill mannered internet flamewars into the real world?

Doc Mara · 1 year ago

SXSW jumps the shark--creepy and entitled audience eats circus performers.

News at 11.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

this sounds like Mark received the brunt of the blame in this piece, for being so "elusive" and unwilling to share.

Also, claiming this isn't a puff piece, doesn't make it so. Yeah yeah yeah, Lacy was so selfless in the end. She wanted Mark to look good.

Save it.

Scott · 1 year ago

"Sarah is thankful for the opportunity, appreciative of her friendship with Mark, and isn’t pointing the finger at anyone."

Flat-out inaccurate, in her own words:

http://twitter.com/sarahcuda/statuses/769000309

Web 2.0 for spin control FTL. Everyone is missing the point. *sigh*