Why I will never speak at TED or TEDx, even if I’m invited

TED’s value was curation and scarcity, and once that trust signal weakened, the stage stopped being worth the trade-off.

Article link: https://open.substack.com/pub/johanosteyn/p/why-i-will-never-speak-at-ted-or?r=73gqa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Audio summary: https://youtu.be/hmeOL6kk7gE

Follow me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanosteyn/

For years, I was a genuine fan of TED and TEDx. Some of the earlier talks helped shape my thinking, introduced me to new ideas, and reminded me what good public education can look like when it is done with rigour. Recently, I watched The rise and fall of TED by Michael Girdley on YouTube, and it pushed me to put words to a feeling I’ve had for a while: something about the TED promise has weakened. I’m not saying there are no good talks left. There are. But the badge no longer reliably signals quality, especially in the TEDx universe. And for that reason, I’ve reached a personal conclusion: even if I were invited tomorrow, I would decline.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

TED became a global cultural force by making a simple offer: here is a stage you can trust. The brand was built on editorial curation and scarcity. Not everyone could get on that stage, and that was the point. When TEDx expanded the model, it democratised speaking and localised “ideas worth spreading” around the world. The intention was noble, but the operational reality was always going to be difficult: quality control becomes harder as volume grows.

Even TED seems to recognise it is entering a new chapter. In October 2025, TED announced a leadership transition, naming Logan McClure Davda as CEO and appointing Sal Khan as “vision steward” and public face of the organisation. Axios framed this change as an effort to secure TED’s future while maintaining its nonprofit mission. The Economist went further, describing it as a directional shift for TED at a time when attention, trust, and the “ideas platform” landscape are all in flux.

INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS

When a brand becomes a trust signal, the cost of inconsistency is high. TED’s red circle once implied a meaningful filter. With TEDx, the filter is distributed across thousands of local organisers, each with different networks, incentives, and thresholds. That does not automatically mean poor quality, but it does mean uneven quality. And uneven quality breaks the promise that made TED special.

Sometimes the problem becomes visible in a dramatic way. In October 2025, Khaleej Times reported that TED revoked a TEDx licence in Dubai and cancelled an event after allegations that organisers were charging up to $25,000 for stage appearances. Whether or not such cases are widespread, they reveal the vulnerability of a prestige brand at scale: once the badge can be “sold”, the audience has no easy way to know what is earned.

My own experience is quieter, but it points to the same structural issue. In South Africa, I have reached out to a number of TEDx events over time and often received no response. Again, that does not make me bitter; it simply signals that the process can be opaque, inconsistent, and not particularly professional. More importantly, when I look at some technology line-ups and read the biographies, I sometimes struggle to see the depth of expertise you would expect for complex technical topics. That may be unfair to individual speakers, I don’t know. But that is exactly the point: the badge used to remove that uncertainty, and now it doesn’t.

The real trade-off is reputational. If the platform can no longer guarantee standards, then speakers inherit the risk of being associated with a diluted signal. And at this stage of my life and career, I’m not interested in borrowed prestige. I’m interested in credible platforms, thoughtful audiences, and work that stands up to scrutiny.

IMPLICATIONS

For TED and TEDx organisers, this is a quality problem, not a marketing problem. The only route back to trust is stronger standards, clearer selection criteria, and visible accountability. If TED wants to remain a reliable “signal”, it must actively defend the filter that made the brand meaningful.

For audiences, the practical implication is discernment. A TEDx logo should be a starting point, not a guarantee. Check the claims, notice the nuance, and treat the talk as a performance that may or may not be backed by substance.

For speakers, especially in technology, credibility is increasingly built elsewhere: through consistent writing, demonstrable real-world outcomes, transparent thinking, and communities that care about quality. A stage is only worth it if it protects the integrity of the work.

CLOSING TAKEAWAY

I’m grateful for what early TED gave me, and I still believe in the power of short talks to spark curiosity. But the strength of TED was never the format. It was the curation. Once scarcity disappeared without stronger standards to replace it, the trust signal weakened, and the badge lost meaning. That is why I will not pursue a TEDx stage, locally or internationally, even if invited. Not because I think every TEDx event is poor, but because the platform no longer offers what it once promised: a reliable guarantee that the audience’s time, and the speaker’s credibility, will be well spent.

Author Bio: Johan Steyn is a prominent AI thought leader, speaker, and author with a deep understanding of artificial intelligence’s impact on business and society. He is passionate about ethical AI development and its role in shaping a better future. Find out more about Johan’s work at https://www.aiforbusiness.net