Tag Archives: gender ratio

2020 Market Research Conference Speaker Gender Tracker #MRX #NewMR

This list shows the gender ratio of speakers at marketing research and related conferences during 2020.

These data are not 100% accurate. I am not always able to identify whether a speaker is male or female based on their name and/or photo, and online and printed programs don’t reflect last minute changes to the schedule. However, given that conference organizers want to project the most positive reflection of their conference program, I am assuming the available programs are within a reasonable margin of error. If you are able to provide more accurate numbers, I would be pleased and grateful to make corrections.

And yes, there is far more to diversity than gender. Diversity of age, ethnicity, ability/disability, sexuality, and more also matter. But gender is a start.

Please contribute: If you have a PDF or image of a conference program, even if it’s from 2015, email it to me so I can include the results in the list.

Let’s create the change we want to see.

2020 gender ratio chart

  • MRS Sports, UK, February, 7%
  • Insights CEO Summit, USA, January, 23%
  • MRMW, Amsterdam, June, 23%
  • CX Talks, Dallas, March, 25%

  • MRS Data analytics, London, February, 35%
  • ESOMAR, Lima, April, 39%
  • ARF Audience x Science, New York, April, 41%
  • IIeX, Amsterdam, March, 43%
  • MRS National Impact, London, March, 45%

  • NGCX, USA, March, 46%
  • ESOMAR DRIVE, Delhi, March, 48%
  • NGCX, California, March, 48%
  • ARF+SXSW, Texas, March, 50%
  • Insights Double Down, Las Vegas, February , 50%
  • Sysomos/Meltwater, London, March, 50%
  • Qualtrics experience summit, Salt Lake City, March, 53%
  • NewMR Festival, Virtual, March, 50%

  • QRCA, Texas , January, 62%
  • MRS Kids, UK, January, 68%
  • Advancing Research 2020, New York, March, 69%

 

How To Find Speakers

  • Women in Research logoBe part of the Women in Research 50/50 initiative and take advantage of their speaker database.
  • Review the speaker lists of other conferences.
  • Maybe you don’t need an experienced speaker. Maybe you need to give opportunity to a brand new speaker.
    • Use LinkedIn to connect with experts in the city where your conference will take place.
    • Use Twitter to connect with experts. I have bookmarked many lists of women who are experts in areas such as artificial intelligence, branding, data science, analytics, cyrpto, neuroscience and much more.
  • In addition, you can use the GenderAvenger toolkit to nominate conferences that are succeeding, take the GA Pledge, or call out conferences that need improvement.

Gender Ratios of Years Past:

2018 Market Research Conference Speaker Gender Tracker #MRX #NewMR

Diversity - market research speaker trackerThis list shows the gender ratio of speakers at marketing research and related conferences during 2018.

These data are not 100% accurate. I am not always able to identify whether a speaker is male or female based on their name. Online programs aren’t always up to date, and printed programs often change at the last minute and don’t reflect who was actually on stage. If you are able to correct my numbers, I would be grateful for the help.

And yes, there is far more to diversity than gender. Diversity of age, ethnicity, ability/disability, sexuality, and more also matter. But let’s at least measure what we can from conference programs.

Please contribute: If you have a PDF or image of a conference program, email it to me so I can include it in this list.

FYI, I put a ⭐ beside any conference between 45% and 55%  and a 👎🏻 beside any conference under 30% or over 70%.

 

  • QRCA, Arizona, January: 19 female, 7 male=73% female (Qual research has more female than male specialists)
  • Qual Worldwide, Spain, May: 20 female, 9 male = 69% female
  • Qual360, Washington, March: 17 female, 11 male speakers = 61% female
  • ESOMAR World, Amsterdam, March: 15 female, 11 male = 58% female
  • Customer Experience Strategies Summit, April: 15 female, 12 male=56% female
  • NewMR Festival, online, February: 16 female, 13 male=55% female
  • TTRA, June, 49 female, 41 male=54% female
  • IMPACT MRS Annual, March:  45 female,  42 male = 52% female
  • ⭐ Market Research Summit, London, May, 18 female, 18 male = 50% female
  • ⭐ ConsumerXscience, The ARF, March, New York, 24 female, 25 male= 49% female
  • ⭐ Africa Forum 2018 AMRA, Nairobi, February: 19 female, 20 male=49% female
  • ⭐ MRMW APAC, June: 9 female, 10 male = 47% female
  • ⭐ MRMW NA, April: 21 female, 24 male = 47% female
  • ⭐ MRIA, Vancouver, May: 25 female, 30 male=45% female
  • Sentiment Analysis Symposium, New York March, 9 female, 10 male=45% female
  • The Insights Show, London, March: 19 female, 25 male= 43% female
  • CX Next, Boston, April:  10 female,  13 male = 43% female
  • TMRE IN FOCUS, Chicago, May: 10 female,  13 male = 43% female
  • Quirks LA, January: 45 female,  63 male=42% female
  • Insights NEXT, April, New York: 28 female, 38 male=42% female
  • Customer Experience & Digital Innovation, San Francisco, April: 5 female, 7 male = 42% female
  • ESOMAR MAIN FEST Latam, Buenos Aires, April:  23 female,  33 male = 41% female
  • Quirks Brooklyn, February: 55 female,  81 male=40% female
  • FUSE Brand & Packaging, New York, April: 19 female, 28 male = 40% female
  • SampleCon, February, Texas: 13 female, 25 male = 39% female
  • IIEX, Amsterdam, February: 50 female, 84 male=37% female
  • Qualtrics experience summit, March, Utah, 32 female, 57 male = 36% female
  • IIEX, Atlanta, June: 44 female, 85 male speakers = 34% female
  • Sysomos Summit, February, New York: 6 female, 12 male=33% female
  • Sysomos Summit, London, April: 4 female, 10 male = 29% female
  • 👎🏻 Insights CEO Summit, January, Florida: 4 female, 13 male = 24% female
  • Insights50, May 2, New York: 1 female, 4 male=20% female
  • 👎🏻 Sawtooth conference, March, Florida, 12 female, 58 male= 17% female

—————————————————————————————————————–

  • MRMW Europe, September:  female,  male = % female
  • PMRC : female, male=% female
  • AMAART Forum, June: female, male=% female
  • AMSRS, September:  female ,  male =% female
  • Big Data & Analytics for Retail Summit, June: female, male=% female
  • CRC, October: female, male=% female
  • CX Talks, October: female, male= % female
  • ESOMAR Big Data World, November: female, male=%female
  • ESOMAR Congress, Berlin, September: female speakers, male speakers =% female
  • ESOMAR Global Qual, November:  female,  male=% female
  • ILC Insights Leadership Conference (Insights Association), September, female, male=% female
  • Insights Corporate Researchers Conference, October, Florida: female, male=% female
  • Insights Leadership Conference, November, San Diego: female, male=% female
  • MRIA Net Gain, November, Toronto: female, male=% female
  • MRMW Europe, November: female, male=% female
  • MRS Driving Transformation Through Insight, October:  female,  male= % female
  • MRS, Customer Summit , November: female, male= % female
  • MRS, Financial, November: female,  male=% female
  • MRS, Methodology in Context, November: female, male=% female
  • Omnishopper International, November, female, male =% female
  • Qual360 APAC, Singapore, October: female,  male=% female
  • Sentiment, Emotional & Behavioral Analytics, July: female, male=% female
  • Sysomos Summit, September: female, male=% female
  • TMRE, October, female, male=% female

Gender Ratios of Years Past:

How many women do you follow on Twitter? #MRX #NewMR

One of the best ways to identify lots of diverse people to speak at conferences is to follow lots of diverse people on social media. But do we?

With that question in mind, I turned to https://www.proporti.onl/, a website that says…

“Estimate the gender distribution of your followers and those you follow, based on their profile descriptions or first names. Many tech leaders follow mostly men, but I want to follow a diverse group of people. Twitter Analytics doesn’t tell me the gender distribution of those I follow, and it doesn’t try to identify gender-nonbinary people. So I built this tool for myself and put it on GitHub. It’s inaccurate and it undercounts nonbinary folk, but it’s better than making no effort at all. I want you to be able to do this, too. Estimate the distribution of those you follow and see if there’s room to improve!”

I’m cool with that so I turned to this tweet by Antonio Santos as a good place to start within the market research industry. I entered each one of these accounts (excluding @MRXblogs which is a bot that follows no one but me), in order to see how we’re doing.

On average, about 36% of the people these market research influencers follow are women.

Sadly, only 3 people follow roughly equal numbers of men and women, and only 2 people follow more women than men (you can guess who!). I’m one of them, but that’s only because I actively follow women and I’ve been using proporti.onl to monitor my status. Unfortunately, for about 43% of us,  one third or fewer of the people we follow are women. The curve is far from expected and could use a lot of improvement.

Fortunately, it’s easy to change that proportion. Lots of people have created lists of women on Twitter who specialize in different areas including marketing research, data science, analytics, STEM, and more. I keep a nice selection of those lists on my twitter account right here. However, here are some of my favourite lists.

  • Women in Data Science: I love this list. Search through the 1200 members and you’ll find tons of women who specialize in data visualization, statistics, neuroscience, RStats, business intelligence, artificial intelligence, and more.
  • Women Game Developers: 100 women who know AI, storytelling, games, user experience, digital marketing, customer relationship management.
  • BioInfo Women: 600 women who know about EEGs, fMRIs, neuroscience, computer science.
  • STEM women: 500 women who know data, engineering, cybersecurity.
  • Women in VR: So, um, these 150 experts know VR.

Now it’s your turn. Go check how many women you follow on Twitter, and then head on over to these lists to make some additions! Expand your world!

2017 Market Research Conference Speaker Gender Tracker #MRX #NewMR 

This list shows the gender ratio of speakers at marketing research and related conferences during 2017.

These data are not 100% accurate. I am not always able to identify whether a speaker is male or female based on their name. Online programs aren’t always up to date, and printed programs often change at the last minute and don’t reflect who was actually on stage. If you are able to correct my numbers, I would be grateful for the help.

Please contribute: Some conferences remove their information immediately afterwards. If you have a PDF or image of a conference program, email it to me so I can include it in this list. If you have a paper program, mail it me or do the counts and simply send me the final numbers.

  • ESOMAR Global Qual, Porto, November: 25 female, 17 male=60% female
  • MRS Driving Transformation Through Insight, London, October: 15 female, 12 male= 56% female
  • ⭐️ AMSRS, Sydney, September: 3 female keynotes, 3 male keynotes, 1 female invited, 1 male invited, 28 female speakers, 19 male speakers=53% female
  • ⭐️ MRS, Financial, London, November: 11 female, 12 male=48% female
  • ⭐️ Qual360 APAC, Singapore, October: 16 female, 17 male=48% female
  • ⭐️ TMRE, Orlando, October, 79 female, 88 male=47% female
  • ⭐️ MR and CI Exchange, St Louis, May: 13 female, 16 male speakers=45% female
  • MRIA, Toronto, May: 25 female speakers, 33 male speakers, 6 female panelists, 4 male panelists, 1 female keynote, 4 male keynotes=44% female
  • CRC, Chicago, October: 37 female, 55 male=40% female
  • Market Research Summit, London, May, 22 female, 29 male=43% female
  • ESOMAR Congress, Amsterdam, September: 62 female speakers, 83 male speakers =43% female
  • MRS, Customer Summit 2017, November, London: 6 female, 8 male=43 % female
  • MRMW Europe, Berlin, November: female, male=43% female 
  • IIEX, Amsterdam, February: 52 female, 76 male=41% female
  • MRS, Methodology in Context, London, November: 40 female, 6 male=40% female
  • Customer Experience Strategies Summit, April, Toronto: 12 female, 18 male=40% female
  • Sysomos Summit, February, North Carolina: 16 female, 25 male=39% female
  • Sysomos Summit, September , NYC: 6 female, 10 male=38% female
  • MRIA Net Gain, November, Toronto: 6 female, 10 male=38% female
  • ILC Insights Leadership Conference (Insights Association) Chicago, September, 13 female, 24 male=35% female
  • IIEX, Atlanta, June: 58 female, 108 male speakers=35% female
  • 👎🏻ESOMAR Big Data World, New York, November: 10 female, 24 male=29%female
  • 👎🏻Sentiment Analysis Symposium, New York, June, 14 female, 35 male=29% female
  • 👎🏻Omnishopper International, Spain, November, 4 female, 13 male =24% female
  • 👎🏻CX Talks, Atlanta, October: 7 female, 25 male=22 % female
  • 👎🏻Big Data & Analytics for Retail Summit, Chicago, June: 5 female, 19 male=21% female
  • 👎🏻 Sysomos Summit, June, London: 3 female, 14 male=18% female
  • 👎🏻 Insights50 (Insights Association), Chicago, October: 1 female, 7 male=13% female
  • 👎🏻 AMAART Forum, Seattle, June: 4 female, 32 male=11% female
  • 👎🏻Sentiment, Emotional & Behavioral Analytics, July, San Francisco: 4 female, 36 male=10% female
  • .
  • PMRC Speakers not available online

Gender Ratios of Years Past:

In which I rant about “we only choose the best conference proposals and we can’t help it if they’re mostly from men” #NewMR #MRX 

I’ve had this post on my mind for many months now but I’ve been hesitant to write it. It seems today is the day. 

If you’ve been following my speaker gender ratio post, you’ll see that I keep adding to the list conferences where fewer than 40% of speakers are women.  Today, I added several to that bucket. On top of that, Ray Poynter just pointed out that the nine new and genuinely deserving fellows of the MRS are all, you guessed it, men. Have women not made any important contributions? I highly doubt it. So today is the day. 

There are many different reasons for conferences to over index on male speakers but I’d like to address one reason in particular. Conference organizers regularly say they choose the abstracts that will be the most interesting and intriguing for their audience.  If that means that most of the speakers are men, then so be it.  Quality wins. As it rightly should. 

But.  

Men do not propose better topics than women.  Men do not have better ideas than women. Men do not propose more innovative nor more important ideas than women. This is truth. 

How do I know? I’m lucky that I get to go to a lot of conferences. I’ve been in the audience for literally hundreds of talks. I’ve seen lots of men give horrible talks. But, as expected, the vast majority of talks given by men are fine. Not horrible, not great, just fine. Most male speakers are awkward or forget what they were going to say or don’t speak loud enough or rush or go over or under time. Most men are basically acceptable speakers.  Such is the law of averages.  

To be clear, most women are also basically acceptable speakers. I, for one, know I’m an awkward speaker who regularly forgets what I want to say.  If the goal of conference organizers is to choose great speakers, well, I’m not seeing it. They could have randomly selected speakers by putting submissions in a hat and the quality of speakers wouldn’t decrease very much. It could even increase because the gems who keep submitting awkward proposals might actually get chosen. 

And when it comes to the topics of the talks, most talks that men give are fairly ordinary.  People like to think that THEIR talk is unique and innovative and offers a previously undiscovered point of view in their field but that’s usually not the case. The vast majority of talks given by men cover material that has already been addressed in twenty other talks at twenty other conferences and in twenty other white papers and fifty other blog posts. New material is exceedingly rare.  Our industry simply doesn’t move very fast.  

To be clear, most women also cover material that has been addressed in twenty other talks at twenty other conferences. Again, the topics I present are rarely truly new and innovative. If the goal was to choose innovative topics, I’m not seeing that either.  Once again, we could randomly choose talks with a magician’s top hat and the degree of innovation would… Well, actually, the talks might be more innovative simply because people who stink at bragging would finally have their papers chosen.  

Even better, random choosing based on top hats would increase the demographic diversity of speakers, and ensure speakers better reflect the diversity of submissions. 
My point is that men and women are similarly generally ok speakers.  Men and women give similarly ordinary talks. If submission acceptances for men outweigh acceptances for women, something is terribly wrong with how organizers identity “greatness.”

Maybe it’s time to completely rethink how conference proposals are reviewed.  Maybe it’s time to use only blind submissions where names and companies are removed. Maybe it’s time to find a way to remove writing style gender cues that unconsciously affect our perceptions. Maybe it’s time to consciously review proposals with the mindset that some people brag and exaggerate the importance of their work whereas other people stick to the facts and discuss their findings within the confines of appropriate generalizations.  Maybe it’s time to give the magician’s hat a chance – remove the obviously horrid submissions and then put every submission in the hat. 

It could only improve things.  Rant done. 

(By reading this far, you hearby commit to submitting to at least one conference this year. Thank you for being part of the solution. )

The gender split in #MRX conferences: we’re not there yet – 2015

I’m behind on conference tallies this year but I think this is a better way to do it anyways. I’ll continue to add all conferences to this page as the year progresses. Do note that I mainly attend quantitative research conferences so other types of conferences may have different results. Also note that, for the most part, quantitative research conferences don’t generally have a gender bias in terms of attendance – men and women are about equally likely to go.

These counts represent the number of speakers listed in the program not including any changes made after the fact. They are also based purely on my interpretation of people’s first names or their photo. If I didn’t know whether a name was likely male or female, I ignored it. Thus, counts will not accurately reflect reality. If you are able to provide a more accurate tally, I’d be more than happy to correct my numbers.

In addition, these numbers say nothing about the gender split that submitted applications to speak, and the gender split of those who were invited to speak but declined.

AAPOR Hollywood      (To come)

 MRIA Toronto      33 male, 43 female, 43% male
Given that the entire history of MR has been ridiculously in the other direction, this is a welcome and delightful change.  The normal curve dictates that sometimes there are more male speakers and sometimes more female speakers.  I do believe this is the FIRST EVER conference on the female side of the normal curve.

 MRA San Diego       30 male, 24 female, 56% male
I’ll call this a reasonable gender split.  It can’t be 50/50 and this is a nice distribution.

 

imageIIeX Atlanta            126 male, 53 female, 70% male
Ok folks. What happened here? This is too far from 50% for me to be okay with it. All the round tables were led by men. All the DIVA award judges were men. Here are the options: Skilled women aren’t in digital, tech, and innovation areas of MR.  Women are choosing not to speak at this conference.  Women weren’t sought out to speak at this conference. Which problem area can YOU address at the next conference.

ESRA Reykjavik            415 male, 412 female, 50.2% male

In other words, if you doubted whether there are enough female speakers in the survey/research/polling niche, I can tell you that there are at least 412 of them. Most of the women I heard speak were good speakers and they knew their material. If you need a speaker, get the speaker list from this conference.

Quirks’s Event            40 female, 49 male, 55% male

 

 

question markQRCA Orlando         25% male

Well, QRCA is a tough call. Everyone in the research industry knows that qualitative research is dominated by female researchers. But what exactly is the true ratio? Is it 25% male, 5% male, or 35%? If you’ve got those stats, i’d love to put them here so that readers can judge for themselves whether the speaker ratio here is acceptable.

AMSRS Sydney        57% male

CRC St. Louis           23 men, 18 women; 56% male. (Early program)

ESOMAR Dublin      98 men, 59 women; 62% Male. (Early program)  We’re still a couple of weeks away from the official event so things may change but as of today, the program is leaning male dominated. Not good Esomar!

%d bloggers like this: