Writing a CFP that attracts good submissions

A bad call for papers doesn't just attract bad submissions. It attracts no submissions — at least not from the speakers you actually want. The people who've presented before, who know their material, who draw an audience? They've seen enough vague, confusing CFPs to know which ones are worth their time. Yours needs to clear that bar.

This isn't about marketing your event harder. It's about communicating clearly enough that good speakers can quickly decide: "Yes, this is for me, and I know exactly what they want."

What good CFPs get right

Clear topic scope. "We're looking for talks about event technology" is too broad. "We're looking for talks about how event teams are using automation to reduce manual workflows — particularly in registration, scheduling, and exhibitor management" gives a speaker something to work with. Specificity attracts better proposals because speakers can tailor their pitch instead of guessing what you want.

Transparent review criteria. Tell speakers how you'll evaluate submissions. Is it originality? Practical applicability? Speaker experience? A mix? When speakers know the rubric, they write better abstracts. When they don't, they shotgun generic proposals and hope something sticks.

Realistic timelines. If your CFP closes on March 1 and your event is March 20, speakers know there's no real review process — you're filling slots. Give enough time between CFP close and event date for genuine curation. And publish the timeline: when submissions close, when reviews happen, when speakers are notified.

Information about the audience. "200 event managers, mostly from association and corporate events, 3-10 years of experience." That single sentence changes how a speaker writes their proposal. Without it, they're guessing who they'd be talking to.

What speakers get. Be upfront. Is there travel support? Accommodation? A speaker fee? If not, say so. Do speakers get a recording of their talk? A comp ticket? Exposure to a specific audience? Speakers aren't unreasonable — but they want to know what they're signing up for before they invest time in a proposal.

A simple submission process. More on this below, because it's where most CFPs go wrong.

What puts speakers off

Vague topic descriptions. "We welcome submissions on a range of topics related to the events industry" tells a speaker nothing. They have to guess what you want, which means you'll get 50 unfocused proposals instead of 20 strong ones.

No timeline. When does review happen? When will I hear back? If you don't say, experienced speakers assume the answer is "never" and move on.

Unclear post-submission process. "We'll be in touch" is not a process. Speakers want to know: will they get a confirmation email? A status update? A rejection if they're not selected? Silence after submission is the fastest way to ensure someone never submits to your event again.

Overly complex forms. If your initial submission form asks for a full slide deck, three references, a video sample, a detailed session outline, and a 500-word bio, you've lost half your potential speakers before they start. Save the detailed requirements for after acceptance.

No information about the event audience. Speakers prepare differently for 50 senior executives than for 500 early-career attendees. If you don't tell them who's in the room, you're asking them to prepare blind.

Keep the form short

This is the single most impactful change you can make. For the initial submission, you need four things:

• Title. What's the talk called?
• Abstract. 200-300 words on what the talk covers and why it matters.
• Bio. Who is this person and why should the audience listen to them?
• Track. If you have multiple tracks or themes, which one does this fit?

That's it. Everything else — detailed outlines, AV requirements, dietary needs, travel arrangements — comes after you've accepted the proposal. Asking for it upfront creates friction that filters out good speakers who don't have time to fill out a 20-field form on a maybe.

Communicate your timeline upfront

Publish this in the CFP itself, not buried in a FAQ:

• CFP opens: [date]
• Submissions close: [date]
• Review period: [date range]
• Speakers notified: [date]
• Programme published: [date]

Speakers plan their calendars months in advance. Giving them concrete dates shows respect for their time and signals that your event is well-organised.

After they submit

Send confirmation immediately. Automated is fine. "We received your submission. Here's what happens next." This takes 30 seconds to set up and prevents dozens of "did you get my proposal?" emails.

Provide status updates during review. Even a simple "your submission is under review" notification when the review period starts makes a difference. Speakers who feel informed are speakers who submit again next year.

Notify everyone — not just accepted speakers. Rejections are uncomfortable, but silence is worse. A brief, respectful decline email keeps your reputation intact. "We received 200 submissions for 30 slots. Yours wasn't selected this time, but we'd welcome a submission next year." That's all it takes.

Tools help, but clarity comes first

ema's CFP tools handle the mechanics — submission forms, review workflows, status notifications, automated confirmations. They make the process smoother for both organisers and speakers.

But the most important thing isn't the tool. It's the clarity of your CFP itself. A well-written call for papers on a basic form will outperform a vague one on the fanciest platform every time.

Write like you're talking to a colleague you want to hear from. Tell them what you want, what they'll get, and what happens next. The good submissions will follow.