From a blog post in Nature:
Over the long run, journal articles are more likely to build a lasting scientific reputation than are presentations. Still, an effective speaker will be seen as someone who can contribute to a wide variety of scientific forums and will be sought for collaboration. Your reputation among colleagues outside your subspecialisty is strongly influenced by your presentations — and these presentations are an important consideration in hiring and promotion decisions.
I have seen terrible presentations (and then some). I have seen cherry picked tweetorials and then some. Pathetic. They end up wasting everyone’s time and I find it surprising that audiences don’t blink their eyes for the “next scientific breakthrough” in cancer. Especially the “late breaking abstracts” designed as show-stoppers in a fashion parade.
I remain critical about these marketing stunts because they don’t serve the purpose. There are innumerable “controversies” that are left to be handled by the “researchers” but molecular genetics (and increasingly AI/ML) is the new scientific gold rush.
However, back to the central point- the purpose of a presentation is to deliver a point of view in a simple manner and if invited, I’d stick to the simplicity. Use titles instead of ramblings to illustrate my point.
I’d also keep the presentation short- 5-6 minutes. Simple. Effective.