Preparing for Scientific Conferences

7 Science-Backed Principles for Powerful Presentations Most presenters focus on their slides. Top communicators focus on their audience’s brain. 🧠 The psychology of presentations is no longer a mystery. I cover it in the opening chapter in my book Message Machine — “Revealing the hidden psychology of communications.” Here are 7 psychology-based principles that will transform how you present: 1) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞 ↳ Start and end with impact. ↳ People remember the beginning and the end — make those moments count. 2) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐭-𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 ↳ Don’t narrate your slides. ↳ Reading text aloud while it’s on-screen splits focus and reduces retention. Use simple visuals to reinforce, not repeat. 3) 𝐃𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 ↳ Pair your message with meaningful visuals. ↳ The brain processes visuals and audio separately. Used wisely, this boosts clarity — but irrelevant images just distract. 4) 𝐂𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 ↳ Clarity is king. ↳ Every extra word or graphic adds cognitive strain. Trim slides to essentials that your audience can absorb instantly. 5) 𝐆𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 ↳ Design with the brain in mind. ↳ Group elements logically. Consistency, proximity, and alignment help the brain form patterns — and improve recall. 6) 𝐀𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝 “𝐒𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬” ↳ If it doesn’t support your point, cut it. ↳ Fun facts or flashy visuals that don’t serve your message? They dilute impact. 7) 𝐅𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐁𝐢𝐚𝐬 ↳ Use conversational language. ↳ Audiences absorb more when your delivery sounds natural. Skip jargon. Speak like a trusted guide. 💬 Which principle do you use most — or want to try next? ♻️ Share this to help your network and follow Oliver Aust to become an elite communicator.

🫨🙄🫩One of my biggest bugaboos is WHY WE KEEP CONFERENCING the same way?!?!? I continue to be on the conference circuit often - as a participant or a panelist…and each gathering feels like such a missed opportunity for true sensemaking/collaboration/organizing. Thanks to Zia Khan for speaking out about the “why the world’s favorite format for gatherings falls short…” (full article 🔗 in the comments.) “[Panels] are predictable, flattering, and easy to produce. Everyone knows they don't really make progress on our most important problems, yet they remain the go-to format. What if convenings weren’t designed for groups to follow a set plan, but instead to deliberately evolve the plan as the group’s conversation and work unfolded? What if we treated a convening as less of an operational task and more like a programmatic strategy, laying out a theory of change focused on achieving an objective, monitoring progress, and adapting along the way? The next generation of collaboration will require true rigor. That means treating connection building as infrastructure, designing processes for problem-solving, and demanding metrics that point to results. We don't need to eliminate all panels. That would miss the paradox. Big events have a role: they generate visibility, attract influential voices, and spotlight urgent issues. Panels themselves aren’t always a waste; they can be useful to spark ideas or set the stage before moving into smaller working sessions. The problem comes when panels stand alone, disconnected from any follow-through. The real opportunity is to balance large convenings with smaller forums that are deliberately designed for progress. If we gave those smaller convenings the same regularity and importance as the headline gatherings, the system as a whole would be stronger, with large stages to raise awareness and smaller rooms to build the trust and commitments that turn awareness into action.”

I attend 30+ data and AI conferences every year, and for the longest time, outreach was complete chaos. Spreadsheets everywhere, notes scattered across tools, follow-ups slipping through, and the worst part was sending generic emails that got ignored. It did not matter how many events I attended, the system just did not scale. So I rebuilt everything inside Airtable. I created a simple but structured system with conferences, sponsors, and contacts all connected in one place. Now I could actually see who I met, where, and what needed to happen next. That alone made things cleaner, but it still required a lot of manual work. The real shift happened when I connected it with Claude. Now I start my workflow in Claude. It pulls context directly from my Airtable base, understands the sponsors I am targeting, the events I am attending, and the history of interactions. Then it goes out, does research on each company, looks at what they have recently announced, and brings back insights that actually matter. From there, it writes everything back into Airtable. New sponsor ideas get added. Outreach emails are drafted with real context. Follow-ups are created automatically based on status. Everything stays structured, tracked, and easy to act on. The biggest change for me is I am no longer jumping between tools or starting from scratch every time. I think in Claude, execute in Airtable, and then go back to Claude to refine messaging or strategy. That back and forth is what makes this powerful. This is how I now manage conference partnerships at scale. Not by adding more tools, but by connecting the right ones in a way that actually works. Learn more about it here – https://lnkd.in/gFCDbR7T #airtablepartner #data #ai #claude #theravitshow

🎤 How can you break into the healthtech / medtech conference circuit? 👋 Just wrapped a whirlwind week at #HealthTechX, #NXGN, and #BMJFutureHealth where I met loads of junior doctors, MBA students, patient advocates, and early-career operators trying to crack the code of getting on stage rather than just in the audience. It often feels like the same “usual suspects” are speaking, setting the agenda, and working the best rooms. So how do you get your foot in the door? 📣 Stand for something - Nobody gets invited just for being clever, they get noticed for having a point of view. Start by publishing, posting, or building a community that aligns with key conference themes. Make some noise. Challenge assumptions. Tag the influencers you want to engage. 🫢 Don't be shy - If a conference is in your area of interest, *ask* early to attend. Many events have comp tickets or bursaries for early-career folks, especially those with lived experience, grassroots credibility, or community involvement. Be clear about what you offer, and ask with purpose. 🙋♀️ Volunteer with intent - Panels are full of people who once ran mics (I sure did) and managed speaker check-in. Volunteering helps you meet organisers, understand the format, and be in the right place when someone drops out last-minute. The best organisers make it worthwhile for volunteers; if not, skip it. (I'm conscious this is an inherently inequitable opportunity for most) 💸 Invest - When all else fails, buy a ticket. But don’t just show up cold. Use LinkedIn and event platforms to pre-book meetings, join mentoring sessions, and connect with speakers in advance. A cold pitch becomes a warm handshake if you’ve already said hello online. 🎤 Ask great questions - A thoughtful question or suggestion at Q&A can raise your profile at the event and ensure people want to talk to you in the breaks. (Don't make a floorspeech, don't plug, and remember to say your name and affiliation!) 💰 Understand the business model - Some slots are "pay-to-play" either through sponsorship, investor pressure, or partner influence. That’s not inherently bad, but know that once you go down that route, you’re being treated as a sponsor, not necessarily a thought leader. 😎 Be a pro - When you *do* get your shot, it's worth investing the time to practice your key talking points, perhaps including some public speaking coaching to ensure you hit your points crisply. Engage the audience, share your energy, and show you can excite the algorithm before/during/after. Remember: conferences need new voices. If you bring fresh energy, credibility, and a clear message, someone will eventually hand you the mic 🚀

Many meetings are ineffective, and for many reasons. But they don’t have to be. I’ve found that three simple tweaks can drastically improve how we use the precious time we spend in those rooms. 1. Clarify not just the agenda, but the goal of each item. Ask yourself: What’s the purpose here? Is this topic about informing others? Or is it one where discussion and perspective are needed? Knowing this helps everyone engage appropriately. 2. Share the agenda and goals before the meeting. Not everyone does their best thinking on the spot. Some people contribute most meaningfully after reflecting. Giving time to prepare leads to richer, more inclusive conversations. 3. When brainstorming, remember Pixar’s motto: “It’s much better for a powerful person to enter a conversation than to start one.” This small shift creates space for others to speak first, and often leads to more creative, candid dialogue. In my experience, small shifts like these can transform meetings from time-wasters into moments of real collaboration and learning. #time #meetings #learning #leadership #collaboration

If your audience didn’t feel anything… you didn’t give a speech. You gave a TEDx audition. The best speakers don’t just inform or entertain. They move people emotionally. Case in point: that viral Thai ad “The Dog” by Kiatnakin Bank. No dialogue. No celebrities. Yet millions cried. Why? Because it tapped into something universal: human emotion. So… how do you do that as a speaker? After 15 years of speaking in 39 countries to half a million people, here's how I evoke emotions in my audience. 1. Choose the emotional entry point, not just the story. Every speech has two beginnings: - the first line you say - and the first feeling your audience registers Before you write anything, ask: “What’s the emotional state they’re in right now?” Are they burned out? Feeling stuck? Hopeful but scared? Then ask: “What emotion do I want them to leave with?” When those two emotions connect, where they are and where you want to take them, your speech becomes a journey, not a monologue. 2. Use emotional contrast, not just chronology. So instead of storytelling like “this happened, then this…” (boring!) Build it like a movie trailer. What creates suspense? Contrast. Here’s how I structure it now: Before the storm - Life was okay… or so I thought... The disruption - Something happened I didn’t see coming... The emotional cost - I didn’t just lose money/time/status, I lost sleep, confidence, myself... The turning moment - And then suddenly... (a moment of truth, a wise mentor, or a shift in perspective) changed everything The ripple effect - That shift led to action, small at first, but it created a wave of momentum, and the results started to follow (yay!) The transfer – And here’s what that means for you. This format works because it mirrors the emotions of transformation and that’s what people want to feel. 3. Give emotional language, not just a moral. Most speakers end with “So… never give up.” (boring!!) But audiences can’t act on vague encouragement. What they need is emotional vocabulary. Say: “If you’re in that same dark place… you don’t need motivation. You need clarity. And here’s how I found mine...” or “Maybe today you’re like how I was, smiling on the outside yet quietly panicking inside.” Insight lands when people feel seen. 4. Don't just end hope. Instill self-belief in them. Our job as speakers isn't to impress the room. Our job is to transfer belief and courage so they are empowered to make the necessary changes even after you have left the stage. Here's how I do it. I say: “You don’t need my story to be inspired. You need to see yourself in my story. And if a guy who used to panic before every speech can now speak globally… I promise, there’s more in you than you know.” Remember, your audience will likely forget what you say but they will never forget how you make them FEEL. This is how you get asked back again and again! #publicspeaking #getpaidtospeak

Over a million people viewed my post on unread UN reports. The irony wasn’t lost on me. A post about UN reports was read more than the actual UN reports!🫣 That post unpacked the problems (if you missed it, you can have a look at the link below). This post is about the solutions that came from the comment section. Here’s what the LinkedIn community had to teach the UN: 1️⃣ Use the “Dip, Swim, Dive” Framework Dip = 30-second hook for opening paragraphs and social media Swim = executive summary that actually summarises. Dive = full technical report for specialists. Most people never dive. But everyone needs to dip. 2️⃣ Lead with Stakes (Heart), Not Just Stats (Head) “735 million people went to bed hungry last night” resonates more than “Global food insecurity affects 735 million individuals.” Same data. Different impact. 3️⃣ Hire Audience Translators Not only language translators but 'audience' translators. Journalists who turn policy into stories. Creators who make data shareable. The UN hires economists and climate scientists. Why not communication experts who speak 'layperson'? None of this requires dumbing down 'technical' content. It requires opening up. Because here’s the part that gets missed... Clear, accessible communication isn’t just a branding fix. It’s a social justice issue. When reports are dense or riddled with jargon, we don’t just lose readers, we silence stakeholders. Neurodiverse audiences. Non-native speakers. Frontline actors. The very people whose insights should shape decisions. Because every unread report isn’t just wasted research. It’s wasted time, wasted money, and... wasted chances to act before global problems get worse. LinkedIn, it seems, just wrote the United Nations’s communication playbook. 👉 See original post here: https://lnkd.in/eFEjrwYE 🔥Follow me for content that is inclusive & accessible

What I learned from my first science slam workshop Less than two weeks ago, I gave my first science slam — and I was instantly hooked. I absolutely loved the experience. Wanting to take things further, I joined a science slam workshop. It might seem ironic to do the workshop after the performance, but sometimes learning sticks better once you've had a taste. Here are the takeaways I’ll carry with me into the next round: 🔑 Less is more. Ten minutes is the official limit. If you’re worried that your talk won’t fit into ten minutes, trust that it definitely won’t work in twelve. Aim for 9:30. Keep it tight, clear, and punchy. 🎭 Authenticity beats perfection. You don’t have to be the funniest person in the room or a natural performer. But you do have to show up as yourself. If the audience can feel why your topic matters to you, it has a real chance of mattering to them too. 🧵 Structure it: Know – Feel – Do. Every strong talk has a clear thread. Ask yourself: What should people know by the end? What should they feel? And what might they be inspired to do? 💬 Start with “Why” — and go deeper. When preparing your talk, ask “Why?” not just once, but four or five times, like a curious three-year-old might. That’s when you move past the surface of your topic and reach the heart of your message. 🎯 Clarify your message. What is the core insight you want the audience to remember — not just right after the talk, but three weeks later, maybe even at 3 a.m.? That’s your north star. Everything else should support it. 🔔 Nail your opening and your ending. Audiences remember beginnings and endings more than anything else. Avoid a generic closing like “That’s it — thanks for listening.” And don’t just wing it — memorize your opening, closing, and transitions. They’re your anchors. 📚 Stories connect more than concepts. People connect more than things. If you want people to care, tell stories. Wrap your ideas in a narrative arc — not because it’s cute, but because it’s how our brains are wired to understand the world. 🧠 Storytelling is problem-solving. A good story reveals a challenge, a journey, and a resolution. Make that path visible. And don’t be afraid to show your own vulnerability — it’s the glue that holds everything together. I’m excited to keep exploring this format. It combines what I love most: research, storytelling, connection, and comedy. You could say: It’s passion in motion.

Common Pitfalls in a Science Pitch You may encounter some typical yet unnecessary mistakes once you deliver short talks or listen to other people's presentations. I have observed four major pitfalls we should overcome for a successful delivery, especially Science Pitches. Here they are: 1. The presentation is impersonal and lacks passion. Example: Successful presentations need emotions! Answer these questions for yourself and include them in your speech: + Why is your project so cool and so compelling? + What are the special highlight moments of your research? + Do you remember a situation in which you gained a groundbreaking insight or a discovery? + What excited you as a child? These are precisely the moments when your eyes light up! They also create a bond with your audience. 2. The structure of the speech remains ambiguous. Instead of staying narrow, you can broaden your perspective: + Do you consider groups outside your field? + Are there intersections between your project and neighboring disciplines? + What is relevant for social, political, economic, and ecological concerns? Bayley and Phipps define “Research Impact” as “provable change (benefit) of research in the ‘real world’”. Bayley explains that project findings ideally “go beyond the academic walls”. 3. The speaker does not think outside the box. Instead, I recommend that you get in touch with the outside world well in advance, and with your target group in particular. + Do not stay isolated during your project work. + Discuss open questions and problems, and ask for other people's perspectives. + Take it one step further: answer the question of how your project relates to neighboring disciplines, the market, or user behavior. 4. He or she makes insufficient use of the linguistic and visual potential. Some people fail to synchronize language style with their target audience. Instead of a mere list of facts, they also fail to translate their results into compelling stories. + Speak like you would to your best friend. It sounds much more approachable than a distant voice. + Adjust your words to your target group to be understood. + Be personal: "we" instead of "one", "here we have" instead of "here one has". These are just four of 24 common pitfalls I observed during presentations. Which common pitfalls have you experienced as a speaker or audience?

The French CEO delivered a speech that freaked out the organization. His team asked me to take a look at it. I said, “of course!” They sent me the video. He spent the first 12 minutes of the speech telling a moving story about his younger brother who suffered from mental illness. He closed by making a statement: “Who is your ‘little brother’ at this organization? Who is the person you will care for?” I thought it was beautiful and vulnerable. But I’m an American. In the French organization, it was controversial. It didn’t land at all. They said, “c’est trop, non?” This week we are looking at cultural differences in the application of story, and my lens has been Erin Meyer’s great “The Culture Map.” The dimension that connects to this conversation is her “Persuading” scale, and it’s maybe the single most practical thing I adjust when I cross borders. This dimension measures cultures based on whether they are “principles first” or “applications first.” I think the French CEO’s speech would have been received much better if he had delivered it in the USA — an “application first” culture. That is, you don’t have to open with theory, or framing. Start with the story. Put us in the moment, make us feel it… and then give us an insight after. Here in the USA, we can go all day with that model. But in “principles first” / “deductive thinking” cultures like France, Germany, Denmark, or Russia, you have to earn that moment. Build the conceptual case first: “Here’s the research; here’s the mechanism; here’s why it matters.” And THEN tell the story as a proof point of the principle you’ve established. (I actually made this mistake with a group in Moscow, Russia. I began in “inspiration space,” and my Americanized delivery was a flop. I’ll tell that story another time!) Now when I’m in “principles first” cultures, I will spend more time in the morning in the theory. And then we get to work telling our stories. But in “applications first” / “inductive thinking” cultures, you can step up to the podium and begin with “so there I was…” and spend the whole time in inspiration language. Notice that the story itself doesn’t change. In both cases, you still tell stories. True in every culture. Once again, we are talking about the phenomena that surrounds the moment of “telling,” and in this case it’s a matter of sequence. Principles first cultures: Make the case before you tell the story. Applications first: Give us an experience. You could likely stay in story / “feel” language the whole time and Americans will love it. But in every case: Tell the story! Which sequence is more persuasive to you personally — theory / think first, or story / feel first?