How to write a talk proposal that actually gets accepted

The problem: proposals that feel polished, but empty ## A talk proposal is not a documentation page ## Using AI is not the problem, outsourcing your voice is ## What I personally look for when reviewing a proposal ## 1. A clear angle ## 2. Evidence of experience (not expertise) ## 3. Honest scope ## 4. A human tone ## Common mistakes I see again and again ## A simple exercise to add a personal touch ## Final thought 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. 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: Without that, it’s almost impossible to confidently put the talk on stage. This is probably the most common misconception. A talk proposal is not: 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: Both groups are looking for clarity, relevance, and authenticity. Let me be very clear: this is not an anti-AI message. AI can be a great tool to: 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. Every program committee is different, but these are the things that immediately catch my attention. Not just what the topic is, but from which perspective you’re approaching it. I don’t need the full outline, I need to understand the lens. You don’t need to be “the world expert”. I care much more about: Concrete experience beats abstract authority every time. Overpromising is very common. If an abstract claims it will: A focused talk is far more attractive than an overly ambitious one. 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. Here are a few patterns that often lead to rejection: None of these are fatal on their own but combined, they make it very hard to say yes. Before writing (or rewriting) your proposal, answer these questions for yourself, not for the CFP form: Then rewrite your abstract starting from those answers. You can still use AI afterwards, just don’t erase the core. 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. Templates let you quickly answer FAQs or store snippets for re-use. Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink. Hide child comments as well For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse - what the talk will really be about - how it will be delivered - and why this specific person should be the one giving it - a neutral description of a topic - a mini Wikipedia page - a list of concepts you’re going to cover - the program committee - the attendees scanning the agenda - clean up language - improve structure - help you iterate faster - 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? - what you’ve actually tried - what went wrong - what surprised you - what you’d do differently today - cover fundamentals - advanced patterns - performance - live demos all in 30–40 minutes… that’s a warning sign. - 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 - 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?