First-Time Speaker Questions, Part 2 - The Secrets of Submitting Talks
June 25, 2026Tags: conferences, speaking
I get asked how I get so many talk acceptances, and it’s a fair question. You naturally hear about the successes, but I want to be transparent - rejections are part of the process too. Let’s break down what goes into submitting talks, backed by real data from past conference submissions (4 declines/1 acceptance at Momentum 2026!) and insights gained through my work on session selection teams.
Rejections Happen Too
You hear about me talking about acceptances because that’s where I’m headed. You typically won’t hear me talk of rejections because I don’t dwell on them and I move on. But to give you insight:
- For Momentum Dev Con 2026, I have 4 declined and 1 accepted.
- For Michigan Technology Conference 2026, I have 2 declined, 1 waitlisted, and 1 accepted.
I don’t always get 1 accepted. For Momentum 2022, I had 5/5 declined. For Explore DDD 2024, I had 1/1 declined. For KCDC 2024, I had 3/3 declined.
Having served on many session selection teams - including CodeMash, Stir Trek, and Momentum Dev Con, I have a bunch of insight here.
- Most conferences in this area get a lot more submissions than they have speaking slots. This is tough competition to get in.
- There are a lot of veteran speakers who are still submitting. So it’s tough competition against incumbent speakers on topics. You need to sell others on why YOU are the one to present on the topic.
- I’ve seen a lot of poorly written titles and abstracts. When I’m reading an abstract, these are the main things I’m looking for:
- Is the topic clear by the title and abstract?
- Does the title make sense?
- Can the attendee clearly identify what they will get out of the talk? If I can’t tell what my clear takeaways are, I’m sure other attendees can’t either. So I’ll vote against the unclear sessions.
- How honest are they about the AI content? Not in terms of AI helping create content but how much do they talk about AI in their talks? I’m the one who will reject AI talks so that traditional database/data talks don’t get completely squashed in a Data/ML track.
A Note on Conference Scouts
I’m in a group with some international speaker friends. Someone mentioned the concept of a “conference scout”. One of the conferences overseas has formal conference scouts who will go to other events in the community to scout talent for their conference. This is apparently a concept I had no clue of.
Now, that said, having been organizing and speaking since 2008/2009-ish, I do a lot of abstract review for individuals, session reviewing for conferences, and scouting as well. However, I’m an independent, freelance “scout” type. When I go to conferences, I make it a point to choose a few talks where the topics are interesting and the speakers are unfamiliar to me - so that I can then recommend them to other events. For example, I caught Kelly’s talk on the builder pattern at devUp and recommended some changes. I’ve since seen him present at CodeMash and Stir Trek as well. I saw Chris present on data pipelines at Stir Trek, and now I’m super excited that he’s presenting at Momentum as well!
I don’t know what the conference overseas looks for in their scouting adventures, as it is a conference I am unfamiliar with. However, when I’m scouting for other speakers for other conferences, this is what I’m looking at:
- Stage presence
- Storytelling
- Takeaways - Are the clear takeaways really covered in the talk?
- Inspiration / Call(s) to Action - Do they make me want to learn more and chase my curiosity?
The Abstract is Done - The Talk May Not Be
One secret that shouldn’t be secret - when we submit our titles and abstracts, know that the talk might not be done. Many of us have abstracts in our back pockets - talks we can do on a moment’s notice. However, we also have talks we haven’t started yet - they may be on topics we ourselves want to explore or talk about more.
For example, I have some sessions on data visualizations and some sessions related to domain events and event sourcing. I’ve got a wealth of research and experience that I could put the talks together in a short period of time. But I’m not going to expend that energy until they get accepted.
Keep in mind that the time between the Call for Speakers and the conference tends to be enough time for us to create our talks, review the talks, rehearse the talks, and then present them at the event.
A Quick Story on Worrying About Incumbent Speakers
Yes, even experienced speakers have to prove why THEY are the right person to present on a topic.
As I look at my Sessionize profile, I see an abstract I wrote in August 2025 that I never bothered submitting. The reason? One of my speaker friends already speaks on the topic, and he’s EVERYWHERE! He’s already established as a speaker who presents on this. So why would I stand out? (And yes, I do think this - even though I know some of you can answer that without hesitation.)
Rest assured, I eventually figured out my own stance. I have since presented on decision records at 4 events - with .NET Conf 2025 being the first to pick up the topic!
Sometimes, we just have to figure out our answer of “Why should I be the person they pick to speak on this?” befpre we get the confidence to put that talk out there.
Conclusion
So, don’t be afraid to submit - even if you face some setbacks. Remember it’s a journey of continuous refinement. Your abstracts are starting points, your talks can evolve, and your voice has value. Keep learning, keep speaking, and never stop exploring opportunities to share your knowledge. If you need help reviewing your abstracts, consider reaching out to me!