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.
Two lists sit in every Stage Finder pitch drawer. Only one of them is a fact. · Speaker Hub
Two lists sit in every Stage Finder pitch drawer. Only one of them is a fact.
Click View pitch on a Stage Finder event and the speaker names split into Confirmed on this stage and Similar speakers in this world. Here is what separates them, and how to use each one in a pitch without overclaiming.
•6 min read
Run a Stage Finder search and the events table gives you a list of places worth pitching. Press View pitch on a row and a drawer opens with the working material for that one event. Most speakers skim it for the email and close it.
The speaker names in the middle of that drawer are the part to slow down for. They come in two separate lists, and they do not mean the same thing.
"Confirmed on this stage" is a claim with evidence behind it
The first list, when it appears, is labeled Confirmed on this stage. Each name there is corroborated by a sourced appearance elsewhere in the same report. The research found a speaker, found an event they spoke at, and the two match.
That is why the chips are green and why the list can be empty. If nothing in the report backs a name for this event, no name goes in. An absent list is not a bug. It is the tool declining to say something it cannot support.
Use these names. If an organizer's past line-up includes someone you have shared a stage with, or someone in your lane, that is a legitimate line in a pitch.
"Similar speakers in this world" is a reason to look, nothing more
The second list is labeled Similar speakers in this world, and it carries its own warning in small print: not confirmed on this line-up, they work in the same space, which is why this event is worth a look.
Read that literally. These are people who operate near the event's topic or audience. Nothing in the report says they appeared there.
This split exists for a reason. The drawer used to have a single "speakers seen on this stage" block, and it was fed by names that were only associated with an event's world. A speaker who had never been near the stage could read as if they had been on it. Two lists fixed that. The grey chips are context for you, not material for the organizer.
The mistake this prevents
Picture the pitch that goes wrong. You see a famous name in the drawer, write "speakers like Dana have kept your audience coming back", and the organizer knows Dana has never spoken there. You have just shown them you did not check, in the first line.
The rule is short:
Cite only from the Confirmed list. Everything else is background for your own judgment.
Open the Event page link at the bottom of the drawer first. It is the event's own page when the research found one, and it is the fastest way to confirm a name and a date.
If Confirmed is empty, say less. Pitch your angle and your fit, and leave the line-up out.
The rest of the drawer is built to be used in order
Above the speaker lists sit two plain fields. Pitch this angle gives a talk topic shaped for that event. How to get on it says where the call for speakers lives or who to contact. Both come from the same research as the rest of the report.
Below the lists is the outreach draft, headed with the event's name, with a Copy email button and a reminder to swap the [brackets] for your details. One caution. It is a draft for the report, not a message written fresh for each row, so the parts that make an event feel chosen have to come from you. Pull the angle from the field above it, and a Confirmed name from the list, if there is one.
A decent order: read the angle, read how to get on it, check the Confirmed names against the Event page, then edit the draft. That takes about as long as sending a generic email, and it reads like something else.
What is the difference between Confirmed on this stage and Similar speakers in this world?
Confirmed names are backed by a sourced appearance elsewhere in the same report, so the research has evidence they spoke at that event. Similar speakers work in the same space but are not documented on that line-up. The second list is a reason to look at the event, not a claim about who spoke there.
Can I tell an organizer that a Similar speaker has spoken at their event?
No. Those names are explicitly not confirmed on the line-up. If you want to cite a past speaker, use a name from the Confirmed list and open the Event page link first to check it yourself.
Is the outreach email written for each event?
The drawer shows the report's outreach draft under a heading with the event's name, and it ships with [brackets] to fill in. Treat it as a starting shape. The event-specific parts, the angle and the speakers you reference, are yours to add from the rest of the drawer.
Open any event in Stage Finder and you get an outreach draft with the event's name on it. The text underneath is one email per search. Here is what that means and how to turn it into a pitch an organizer answers.
Stage Finder's Speaker Map shows the real speaking footprint of the people you admire, not a highlight reel. Every appearance carries a source and a verified flag the server sets, and an empty card means the research found nothing to cite, not that it never looked.
The format dropdown on Stage Finder is not a display filter. It ships with your speakers, topic, and fee as part of the actual search request, which means leaving it on the default changes what the tool looks for, not just what it shows you.
