Speaker Hub uses necessary cookies for secure accounts. With your permission, first party analytics help us improve signup and onboarding. We do not use advertising or cross site tracking cookies. Read the Cookie Policy.
How to write a speaker proposal a chair can say yes to · Speaker Hub
How to write a speaker proposal a chair can say yes to
Reviewers read a hundred of these in an afternoon. Four things decide yours, and the title carries more weight than the abstract.
•6 min read
A reviewer with eighty proposals and one afternoon is not reading carefully. They are sorting.
Understanding that changes what you write.
How the sorting works
Roughly, a reviewer does three passes.
Titles first, to make a rough pile. Anything vague goes to the bottom and may never be opened.
Then the first two sentences of the abstracts that survived, to work out what the session actually is.
Then, for the shortlist, the rest of it, plus your bio and any video.
So the title decides whether the abstract is read, and the first two sentences decide whether the rest is. That is where the effort goes.
The title
Most proposals lose here, and the fix is one substitution: name a specific problem instead of a broad theme.
Weak: "Building a Culture of Psychological Safety"
Better: "Why Your Team Stopped Reporting Mistakes, and What Happened When We Asked Them Why"
The second is longer, which does not matter, and it makes a promise the reader can picture. It also uses the words the audience would use rather than the words the field uses.
Three tests for a title:
Can a reader tell what they will learn?
Does it name something specific, a number, a situation, an outcome?
Would somebody in the audience describe their problem this way?
Avoid a colon followed by a subtitle that restates the first half. It is the most common shape in conference programmes, which is exactly why it disappears.
The first two sentences
Do not open by describing the field. Open with the problem, in the room, as the audience experiences it.
Weak: "Psychological safety has become an increasingly important topic in modern healthcare organisations."
Better: "In one hospital trust, ninety percent of incident reports came from the same four percent of staff. When we asked the rest why, the answers had nothing to do with the reporting system."
The second one starts a story and creates a question. A reviewer who wants to know the answer keeps reading, which is the entire job of those two sentences.
The rest of the abstract
Once you have their attention, answer four things plainly. Reviewers are looking for them and will hunt if you make them.
Who this is for. Be specific and be willing to exclude people. "Team leads and managers in clinical settings" is more useful to a chair than "anyone interested in culture," because their job is putting the right session in the right track.
What the audience will leave with. Two or three concrete things. Not "a deeper understanding of," which is not a takeaway. What will they be able to do on Monday.
Why you. One sentence. The credential that makes this talk yours rather than anyone's. If your qualification is that you read a lot about it, choose a different topic.
The format. Length, whether it is a talk or a workshop, whether there is interaction. Chairs are assembling a day and need to know the shape.
Match the call
Most calls state themes for that year. A proposal aimed at a stated theme is competing in a much smaller pool.
Read the call properly and use its language. If they have asked for sessions on "workforce sustainability," and your talk is about retention, say workforce sustainability. Not because you are gaming anything, but because you are describing your talk in the terms the people choosing have in their heads.
Then check last year's agenda. Anything on it is a topic they have covered, and duplicating it is one of the commonest quiet rejections. Finding calls for speakers covers where to get both.
Aiming at the gap rather than the theme is what Stage Finder is built for, since comparing your material against a programme is the slow manual part.
What gets rejected
Predictable causes, and all avoidable.
The product pitch. Any proposal that ends up being about your company gets rejected, and reviewers can smell it from the abstract. If your talk requires naming your product, it is a sponsor slot, not a session.
The unfocused survey. "An overview of trends in X." No argument, no takeaway, nothing to disagree with.
The one that could go anywhere. If your proposal would work unchanged at any conference in your industry, it is not aimed at this one.
The wrong seniority. Introductory content at a senior conference, or the reverse. The call usually tells you which, and the mismatch is the single easiest rejection for a reviewer to make.
Before you submit
Two checks, both quick.
Give the title alone to somebody in the target audience and ask what they think the session is about. If they cannot tell you, rewrite it and leave the abstract alone.
Read your first two sentences out loud. If they describe a field rather than a situation, you have opened with background.
Then submit early in the window. Some conferences review on a rolling basis, and it costs nothing to be in the first pile.
A promise the reader can picture, in language the audience uses. Reviewers scan titles before they read anything else, so a vague title means the abstract may never get read. Compare a title naming a specific problem against one naming a broad theme, and the specific one wins even when the talk behind it is identical.
How long should a speaker abstract be?
As long as the form allows, used properly, which is usually between 150 and 300 words. Do not pad it, and do not submit 40 words either. A very short abstract reads as an idea rather than a prepared session, and a reviewer choosing between two proposals will take the one that looks ready.
Should I submit the same proposal to several conferences?
Adapt rather than copy. The core talk can be the same, and the title, the opening line and the audience description should match each event's language and themes. A proposal that references this year's stated theme is competing in a smaller pool than one that could have been sent anywhere.
Stage Finder returns four different kinds of answers from one search: events worth pitching, live open calls, where your admired speakers appear, and who to watch at your level. Here is which ones want a click and which are just reference.
Stage Finder's Open Calls list is ranked by topic overlap and deadline pressure, not by when a listing was added. Here is what actually moves a call to the top, and what to do with the ones sitting in the middle.
