We have only 12 speakers at Checkout Summit, which gives us plenty of time for breakout sessions, proper meals, chats and why not—walks on the beach!
The challenge, though, is that I received far more applications than spots, and saying no was genuinely hard.
That experience made me think about something that has bothered me for years in the WordCamp ecosystem: how much effort potential speakers invest to brainstorm and submit their talks, and how much of that effort is wasted when their talks are rejected.
This is a problem. Rejection affects quality, speaker diversity, and ultimately the value we all get from attending conferences.
The Hidden Cost of Speaker Rejection
Pitching a conference talk takes time. Not just filling out a form, but thinking through an idea, shaping a story, outlining takeaways, customizing your bio.
When a proposal is rejected, the emotional cost is real. Disappointment is the obvious part, but there’s also annoyance at the time invested, and frustration when all that work simply disappears.
What makes it worse is that rejection often comes without context. No feedback, no indication of whether the idea was close or completely off.
Feedback is way better than a “Sorry, _____” email. Even a short explanation would help (just like with job applications, if the employer cares).
From the speaker’s perspective, the effort feels wasted. Over time, that has consequences. People stop pitching.
My Own Experience Pitching at WordCamp Europe
About two years ago, I decided to stop pitching talks for WordCamp Europe. Not because I ran out of ideas, but because my talks were never accepted. I was consistently pitching WooCommerce-related talks, intentionally so, because I wanted to give Woo more coverage on flagship stages.
After a while, it became demotivating. Preparing proposals, refining angles, and then receiving yet another rejection with no explanation made me question whether the effort was worth it. So I stopped. I even said so publicly, out of honesty:
This year, for WCEU 2026, I started pitching again. Matt mentioned on the Do the Woo podcast that WooCommerce talks weren’t getting enough coverage because there weren’t enough Woo-focused submissions.
So, let’s see how that goes…
Anyhow, the topic itself isn’t what this post is about. It’s not about WordPress versus Woo, or which topics deserve more space.
The real issue is M-O-T-I-V-A-T-I-O-N.
A potential speaker is far more likely to put in the work to craft a strong, thoughtful talk if they know their time won’t be wasted entirely if they’re not selected.
Right now, the system tells speakers: invest heavily, and if you’re rejected, that’s the end of the road. That’s not how you get better talks. That’s how you slowly train people to disengage.
Why Our Effort Needs a Safety Net
People do their best work when there’s an exit plan. When rejection isn’t a dead end, but a fork in the road. If speakers know that their proposal, outline, or even finished deck can still be used in another form, the incentive structure changes completely.
Suddenly, rejection doesn’t mean failure. It means redirection. And that shift alone can raise the average quality of submissions across the board.
What’s missing today is a structured way to reuse the work that didn’t make it onto the main stage. Rejected talks need alternate formats that respect the effort put in and still serve the community.
The content already exists. The ideas are there. We’re just not doing anything with them.
Flash Talks and the Unconference Spirit
Years ago, unconference-style sessions and lightning talks were more common at flagship WordCamps. Short, voluntary, low-pressure presentations where speakers could share a focused idea without the expectations of a full-length talk.
Also, no need for a comp ticket, if budget is a problem.
This could be a natural home for rejected proposals. Not mandatory, not automatic, but available. Speakers who still want to share could opt in, knowing they’ll have a smaller stage but a real audience.
Imagine a full track dedicated to flash talks, made of all the talks that were rejected… That alone would make the original effort feel worthwhile.
Post-WordCamp Online Events
Another option is online follow-ups. One-off webinars, post-WordCamp virtual days, or sessions hosted under platforms like Learn WordPress. Rejected talks could be refined, improved, and delivered in a setting that’s explicitly about growth.
This does two things at once. It gives speakers a reason to keep iterating, and it helps create better speakers over time.
Flagship WordCamps tend to drift toward safe, generic content. That’s understandable when the stakes are high and the audience is massive. But it also explains why so much of the real value ends up in hallway conversations, side chats, or even outside the venue altogether.
When stages feel constrained, people look elsewhere for depth. Giving more formats and outlets for ideas would ease that pressure and diversify the experience without lowering standards.
What I’m Doing at Checkout Summit
At Checkout Summit, I wanted to make sure no one’s effort goes to waste.
That’s why I’ve defined a list of backup speakers (it’s inevitable that a speaker will need to cancel at the last minute), asking everyone who didn’t make the cut to join us at Checkout Summit either way, with a ready-to-go deck.
Nothing new, you’d think?
Nope, there’s a small tweak.
I’ve never liked the idea of someone being a “backup” without motivation.
To make it meaningful, I invited each backup speaker, if they end up not making it to the IRL main stage, to present their talk at one of my upcoming live online WooCommerce masterclasses and cohorts.
This way, the time and effort they put into crafting a talk won’t vanish—it will still reach an audience, provide value, and give them feedback to improve. It’s a small step, but it ensures that preparation is respected, motivation stays high, and great ideas don’t get lost in a rejection email.
Let’s Stop Wasting the Work
We already have motivated speakers. We already have ideas. We already have people willing to invest serious time to teach others. The only thing missing is a system that respects that effort, even when a talk doesn’t fit the main schedule.
Fixing this isn’t about adding more talks. It’s about closing the loop.
I want better talks. I want more motivated speakers. And I want people to feel that pitching a WordCamp talk is worth the effort, even if they don’t get selected. Giving speakers an exit plan, feedback, and alternate formats isn’t charity—it’s an investment in the long-term quality of our events.
We don’t need more content. We need to stop throwing good work away.
By the way, WCEU Call for Speakers is open until January 31: https://europe.wordcamp.org/2026/call-for-speakers/ 🙂
Photo by Kostas Fryganiotis, WordCamp Europe 2025
