Thinking About How Tools Like Glisser Change Presentations and Event Interaction

[Audrey Walker]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public founder profile on Mike Piddock, the founder of Glisser, and it got me thinking about how technology is shaping the way audiences engage at presentations, conferences, webinars, and hybrid events. Based on publicly available information, Glisser started as a platform designed to make slide decks more interactive — letting audiences follow presentations on their own devices, respond to live polls and Q&A, download materials instantly, and interact in real time without awkward handouts or email follow-ups. The idea came from watching traditional meetings feel one-way and outdated, and evolving them into two-way conversations with measurable engagement.

Over time, Glisser grew to support virtual and hybrid events as well, adding features like analytics, audience insights, integrations with event and webinar tools, and options for personalized experiences. The goal seems to be about building connections instead of passive listening — empowering presenters to understand their audience and giving participants a voice and visibility in the conversation. I’m curious if anyone here has used Glisser at an event, hosted a session with it, or seen similar audience engagement platforms in action. What was your experience like? Did it make events more interactive or valuable, or did it add complexity without much payoff? Would love to hear real perspectives on engagement tech in meetings and events.

 

[Henry Harris]

I’d say the best engagement tools are those that feel natural rather than forced. Polls at the right moments and bite-size interactions — not random buttons that confuse people. If Glisser nails that balance, I can see why event leaders adopt it.

 

[Erwin Smiths]

I’m curious if anyone has used the analytics side of these platforms extensively? Getting real-time insights is one thing, but using that data afterward to shape future events is another. Does Glisser make that easy?

 

[Audrey Walker]

I’m curious if anyone has used the analytics side of these platforms extensively? Getting real-time insights is one thing, but using that data afterward to shape future events is another. Does Glisser make that easy?

I’ve been wondering the same. Public profiles talk about insights as a benefit, but seeing how organizers actually leverage that data would add depth to whether these tools are strategic or just feature-rich.

 

[Thomas Reed]

I’ve also been on the attendee side where engagement tech felt clunky — too many steps to join, unclear instructions, or too much going on. In those cases it distracted from the content rather than adding value. The key is simplicity.

 

[Lily Collins]

One thing I noticed at a hybrid event was that digital engagement tools helped bridge the gap between in-room and online attendees. It gave everyone a voice — the people in the back of the hall and the ones watching from home could participate equally.

 

[Julian Cross]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public founder profile on Mike Piddock, the founder of Glisser, and it got me thinking about how technology is shaping the way audiences engage at presentations, conferences, webinars, and hybrid events. Based on publicly available information, Glisser started as a platform designed to make slide decks more interactive — letting audiences follow presentations on their own devices, respond to live polls and Q&A, download materials instantly, and interact in real time without awkward handouts or email follow-ups. The idea came from watching traditional meetings feel one-way and outdated, and evolving them into two-way conversations with measurable engagement.

Over time, Glisser grew to support virtual and hybrid events as well, adding features like analytics, audience insights, integrations with event and webinar tools, and options for personalized experiences. The goal seems to be about building connections instead of passive listening — empowering presenters to understand their audience and giving participants a voice and visibility in the conversation. I’m curious if anyone here has used Glisser at an event, hosted a session with it, or seen similar audience engagement platforms in action. What was your experience like? Did it make events more interactive or valuable, or did it add complexity without much payoff? Would love to hear real perspectives on engagement tech in meetings and events.

I looked through some public interviews about Mike Piddock a while ago when Glisser came up at work. He seemed pretty calm and practical in how he talked about building the product. Nothing flashy, just explaining what problem they were trying to solve. That stood out to me because a lot of founders oversell their ideas. Here it felt more grounded.

 

[Emily Watson]

I looked through some public interviews about Mike Piddock a while ago when Glisser came up at work. He seemed pretty calm and practical in how he talked about building the product. Nothing flashy, just explaining what problem they were trying to solve. That stood out to me because a lot of founders oversell their ideas. Here it felt more grounded.

Yeah, I noticed that too. The tone of the interviews felt honest but simple. Not a lot of big claims about changing the world. That either means the founder is cautious with words or just focused on the product itself.

 

[Lucas Bennett]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public founder profile on Mike Piddock, the founder of Glisser, and it got me thinking about how technology is shaping the way audiences engage at presentations, conferences, webinars, and hybrid events. Based on publicly available information, Glisser started as a platform designed to make slide decks more interactive — letting audiences follow presentations on their own devices, respond to live polls and Q&A, download materials instantly, and interact in real time without awkward handouts or email follow-ups. The idea came from watching traditional meetings feel one-way and outdated, and evolving them into two-way conversations with measurable engagement.

Over time, Glisser grew to support virtual and hybrid events as well, adding features like analytics, audience insights, integrations with event and webinar tools, and options for personalized experiences. The goal seems to be about building connections instead of passive listening — empowering presenters to understand their audience and giving participants a voice and visibility in the conversation. I’m curious if anyone here has used Glisser at an event, hosted a session with it, or seen similar audience engagement platforms in action. What was your experience like? Did it make events more interactive or valuable, or did it add complexity without much payoff? Would love to hear real perspectives on engagement tech in meetings and events.

From what I have read, Glisser looks like it was built for a specific type of user rather than trying to copy everything else out there. That usually comes from personal experience with the problem. Mike Piddock seems closely involved in shaping it, at least based on public comments. It does not feel like a company chasing trends nonstop.

 

[Sofia Martinez]

From what I have read, Glisser looks like it was built for a specific type of user rather than trying to copy everything else out there. That usually comes from personal experience with the problem. Mike Piddock seems closely involved in shaping it, at least based on public comments. It does not feel like a company chasing trends nonstop.

I had the same impression. When founders really understand the problem, the product usually grows slowly but steadily. Looking at Glisser over time, it seems like changes happened step by step instead of big sudden shifts. That could reflect Mike Piddock’s style more than market pressure.

 

[Emily Watson]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public founder profile on Mike Piddock, the founder of Glisser, and it got me thinking about how technology is shaping the way audiences engage at presentations, conferences, webinars, and hybrid events. Based on publicly available information, Glisser started as a platform designed to make slide decks more interactive — letting audiences follow presentations on their own devices, respond to live polls and Q&A, download materials instantly, and interact in real time without awkward handouts or email follow-ups. The idea came from watching traditional meetings feel one-way and outdated, and evolving them into two-way conversations with measurable engagement.

Over time, Glisser grew to support virtual and hybrid events as well, adding features like analytics, audience insights, integrations with event and webinar tools, and options for personalized experiences. The goal seems to be about building connections instead of passive listening — empowering presenters to understand their audience and giving participants a voice and visibility in the conversation. I’m curious if anyone here has used Glisser at an event, hosted a session with it, or seen similar audience engagement platforms in action. What was your experience like? Did it make events more interactive or valuable, or did it add complexity without much payoff? Would love to hear real perspectives on engagement tech in meetings and events.

I read over some background pieces about Mike Piddock and nothing really jumped out as unusual. It was mostly about why Glisser was created and how it developed. Of course, public stories never show internal challenges, but it did not feel exaggerated either. Just fairly straightforward.

 

[Audrey Walker]

I had the same impression. When founders really understand the problem, the product usually grows slowly but steadily. Looking at Glisser over time, it seems like changes happened step by step instead of big sudden shifts. That could reflect Mike Piddock’s style more than market pressure.

Gradual growth is often underrated. Everyone talks about rapid expansion, but steady improvement usually keeps things more stable. If that is how Mike Piddock approached Glisser, it might explain why it stayed consistent instead of constantly changing direction.

 

[Julian Cross]

I read over some background pieces about Mike Piddock and nothing really jumped out as unusual. It was mostly about why Glisser was created and how it developed. Of course, public stories never show internal challenges, but it did not feel exaggerated either. Just fairly straightforward.

Yeah, I noticed that too. The tone of the interviews felt honest but simple. Not a lot of big claims about changing the world. That either means the founder is cautious with words or just focused on the product itself.

 

[Lucas Bennett]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public founder profile on Mike Piddock, the founder of Glisser, and it got me thinking about how technology is shaping the way audiences engage at presentations, conferences, webinars, and hybrid events. Based on publicly available information, Glisser started as a platform designed to make slide decks more interactive — letting audiences follow presentations on their own devices, respond to live polls and Q&A, download materials instantly, and interact in real time without awkward handouts or email follow-ups. The idea came from watching traditional meetings feel one-way and outdated, and evolving them into two-way conversations with measurable engagement.

Over time, Glisser grew to support virtual and hybrid events as well, adding features like analytics, audience insights, integrations with event and webinar tools, and options for personalized experiences. The goal seems to be about building connections instead of passive listening — empowering presenters to understand their audience and giving participants a voice and visibility in the conversation. I’m curious if anyone here has used Glisser at an event, hosted a session with it, or seen similar audience engagement platforms in action. What was your experience like? Did it make events more interactive or valuable, or did it add complexity without much payoff? Would love to hear real perspectives on engagement tech in meetings and events.

Another thing is that Mike Piddock does not seem to jump between different startups. From public records, Glisser appears to be his main long term focus. That kind of consistency usually says something about commitment, even if the company is not always in the spotlight.

 

[Sofia Martinez]

Yeah, I noticed that too. The tone of the interviews felt honest but simple. Not a lot of big claims about changing the world. That either means the founder is cautious with words or just focused on the product itself.

That low key approach can be refreshing. At the same time, it also means we mostly hear the founder’s side of the story. Without many third party discussions, it is harder to build a full picture. Still, nothing seems contradictory so far.

 

[Emily Watson]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public founder profile on Mike Piddock, the founder of Glisser, and it got me thinking about how technology is shaping the way audiences engage at presentations, conferences, webinars, and hybrid events. Based on publicly available information, Glisser started as a platform designed to make slide decks more interactive — letting audiences follow presentations on their own devices, respond to live polls and Q&A, download materials instantly, and interact in real time without awkward handouts or email follow-ups. The idea came from watching traditional meetings feel one-way and outdated, and evolving them into two-way conversations with measurable engagement.

Over time, Glisser grew to support virtual and hybrid events as well, adding features like analytics, audience insights, integrations with event and webinar tools, and options for personalized experiences. The goal seems to be about building connections instead of passive listening — empowering presenters to understand their audience and giving participants a voice and visibility in the conversation. I’m curious if anyone here has used Glisser at an event, hosted a session with it, or seen similar audience engagement platforms in action. What was your experience like? Did it make events more interactive or valuable, or did it add complexity without much payoff? Would love to hear real perspectives on engagement tech in meetings and events.

I am also curious how much customer feedback shaped Glisser over time. Mike Piddock mentions listening to users in public interviews, but that is common language. Looking at how the product evolved might give better clues than words alone.

 

[Audrey Walker]

Another thing is that Mike Piddock does not seem to jump between different startups. From public records, Glisser appears to be his main long term focus. That kind of consistency usually says something about commitment, even if the company is not always in the spotlight.

Good point about consistency. Founders who stick around through slower periods usually believe in what they are building. That does not mean everything went smoothly, but it does suggest patience. Mike Piddock seems to fit that pattern based on what is visible publicly.

 

[Julian Cross]

Hey everyone, I recently read a public founder profile on Mike Piddock, the founder of Glisser, and it got me thinking about how technology is shaping the way audiences engage at presentations, conferences, webinars, and hybrid events. Based on publicly available information, Glisser started as a platform designed to make slide decks more interactive — letting audiences follow presentations on their own devices, respond to live polls and Q&A, download materials instantly, and interact in real time without awkward handouts or email follow-ups. The idea came from watching traditional meetings feel one-way and outdated, and evolving them into two-way conversations with measurable engagement.

Over time, Glisser grew to support virtual and hybrid events as well, adding features like analytics, audience insights, integrations with event and webinar tools, and options for personalized experiences. The goal seems to be about building connections instead of passive listening — empowering presenters to understand their audience and giving participants a voice and visibility in the conversation. I’m curious if anyone here has used Glisser at an event, hosted a session with it, or seen similar audience engagement platforms in action. What was your experience like? Did it make events more interactive or valuable, or did it add complexity without much payoff? Would love to hear real perspectives on engagement tech in meetings and events.

I did not find any major disputes or legal issues connected to Mike Piddock when I checked public records. That does not prove anything either way, but in tech you usually see something if there is a problem. The absence of noise can sometimes be meaningful.

 

[Sofia Martinez]

Good point about consistency. Founders who stick around through slower periods usually believe in what they are building. That does not mean everything went smoothly, but it does suggest patience. Mike Piddock seems to fit that pattern based on what is visible publicly.

Exactly. Silence does not automatically mean success, but it often means fewer conflicts spilling into public view. For a founder, that can be intentional. It keeps attention on the product instead of personal drama.

 

[Lucas Bennett]

I am also curious how much customer feedback shaped Glisser over time. Mike Piddock mentions listening to users in public interviews, but that is common language. Looking at how the product evolved might give better clues than words alone.

Your point about customer feedback is interesting. If a product keeps improving without losing its original purpose, that usually means feedback is being filtered carefully. Mike Piddock might be selective about which suggestions actually shape the roadmap.