If you’ve ever submitted a talk proposal and wondered “Why wasn’t this accepted?”, this article is for you.
I’m part of several conference program committees, and over the years I’ve read hundreds of submissions. I’ve also been on the other side, submitting talks myself and dealing with rejections, rewrites, and iterations.
Recently, there’s one pattern I keep seeing more and more, and it’s making the selection process harder than it should be.
The problem: proposals that feel polished, but empty
Many submissions today are technically well written.
The grammar is perfect.
The structure is clean.
The buzzwords are all there.
And yet… they say nothing.
Titles and abstracts that feel heavily AI-generated often lack the one thing that actually helps a program committee make a decision: a clear, personal point of view.
When I read those proposals, I struggle to understand:
- what the talk will really be about
- how it will be delivered
- and why this specific person should be the one giving it
Without that, it’s almost impossible to confidently put the talk on stage.
A talk proposal is not a documentation page
This is probably the most common misconception.
A talk proposal is not:
- a neutral description of a topic
- a mini Wikipedia page
- a list of concepts you’re going to cover
A talk proposal is a promise.
It’s the first signal of how you think, how you communicate, and what attendees will experience if they choose your session over dozens of others.
Before your talk reaches the audience, it has to convince:
- the program committee
- the attendees scanning the agenda
Both groups are looking for clarity, relevance, and authenticity.
Using AI is not the problem, outsourcing your voice is
Let me be very clear:
this is not an anti-AI message.
AI can be a great tool to:
- clean up language
- improve structure
- help you iterate faster
The problem starts when AI replaces your thinking instead of supporting it.
If I remove your name from the proposal and it could have been written by anyone, that’s a red flag.
Your proposal should answer one simple question:
Why do you care about this topic?
If that answer isn’t visible, the proposal feels generic even if it’s technically correct.
What I personally look for when reviewing a proposal
Every program committee is different, but these are the things that immediately catch my attention.
1. A clear angle
Not just what the topic is, but from which perspective you’re approaching it.
- Is it based on real-world experience?
- Is it a lesson learned the hard way?
- Is it a comparison, a failure story, a migration journey?
I don’t need the full outline, I need to understand the lens.
2. Evidence of experience (not expertise)
You don’t need to be “the world expert”.
I care much more about:
- what you’ve actually tried
- what went wrong
- what surprised you
- what you’d do differently today
Concrete experience beats abstract authority every time.
3. Honest scope
Overpromising is very common.
If an abstract claims it will:
- cover fundamentals
- advanced patterns
- internals
- performance
- live demos all in 30–40 minutes… that’s a warning sign.
A focused talk is far more attractive than an overly ambitious one.
4. A human tone
I don’t expect perfection.
I do expect sincerity.
Proposals that sound like marketing copy or technical documentation are harder to trust than ones that feel written by a real person who genuinely wants to share something.
Common mistakes I see again and again
Here are a few patterns that often lead to rejection:
- Titles full of buzzwords, but no substance
- Abstracts that list technologies instead of ideas
- Generic phrases like “we will explore”, “we will deep dive”, “you will learn everything about…” with no specifics
- No indication of why this talk exists
- No sense of who the talk is for
None of these are fatal on their own but combined, they make it very hard to say yes.
A simple exercise to add a personal touch
Before writing (or rewriting) your proposal, answer these questions for yourself, not for the CFP form:
- Why did this topic matter to me personally?
- What problem or confusion led me here?
- What do I wish someone had told me earlier?
- What’s one opinion or lesson I’m confident about?
Then rewrite your abstract starting from those answers.
You can still use AI afterwards, just don’t erase the core.
Final thought
Conferences don’t need more perfectly formatted proposals.
They need clear voices, real experiences, and honest stories.
If your proposal reflects how you actually think and care about a topic, it will already stand out even before the talk is delivered.
If you’re new to speaking, struggling with rejections, or unsure how to improve your submissions: you’re not alone. And this is a skill you can learn.
If this article helps even one person get their first “accepted” email, it’s already done its job.
Top comments (0)