One of the biggest fallacies in networking is that what determines a successful event is the number of people who attend. When I ran networking groups, one of the most common questions first asked by potential visitors was how many people would be there. I recently heard someone complain that a niche social network wasn’t worth joining because it “only has 2,000 members”.
If you are guilty of judging events on their numbers, step back and think again. Whether there are 20 people or 200 people at an event, what difference does it make to you? How many people will you talk to over the course of the event? Similarly, would you rather join a social network with 100,000 members, the majority of whom have no relevance to you, or a niche network with 2,000 members selected because of the strength of their potential to interact and collaborate?
I would much rather go to an event with a small number of people who understand how to network effectively and look for opportunities for each other, than a room full of people trying to sell to me. In the former case you actually have exposure to substantially more people; people who understand how to network bring with them everyone they know, as they look for the chance to make connections.
In many cases a small group is far more likely to succeed than a large one. I belong to a ‘Mastermind group’, a collection of peers (in this case, people who speak for a living) who offer each other support on our business challenges. We spend a day together every two months and discuss the state of each other’s business and any particular challenges, trying to offer solutions and suggestions.
We recently discussed whether to invite a new member to join our group, taking our number up to seven. There was a strong argument not to do so as seven people may leave us with too many voices and not enough time to focus on individuals.
Last year I was invited to a networking dinner by Tanya Rennick, who runs The Oyster Club. There were probably around 25 people in the room, of whom I spoke to around one third. Some conversations were in depth over dinner, others fleeting. If there had been sixty people at the dinner I would probably have spoken to exactly the same number as I did with 25.
Tanya restricts numbers at her events by making them invitation only and setting criteria for membership. If she lifted those restrictions to ensure more people attend I might speak to the same number of people but my chances of meeting the ‘right’ people for me would be left more to chance.
After the event Tanya told me about the 6 at 6 meetings she hosts. Once a month she invites six members to join her for drinks in London at 6pm. They sit in a bar and chat for an hour or two, getting to know each other better.
I love Tanya’s idea. Six people joining each other in a social setting with no agenda will often achieve far more between them than 100 people ‘working the room’. I recently stopped attending one network as the time invested was less effective for me since the group had grown from eight regular attendees to over fifty. The value I received came from deep relationships built from seeing the other seven members each month and getting to know them better. With the growth in the popularity of the group those core members were lost in the crowd.
Of course, I am not suggesting that all networking events should restrict their attendance to small numbers. There are many times where you want an event to have a large turnout. It may increase your chance of meeting new people, particularly if you go frequently, and of key people you want to meet being there.
However, networking is not about ‘one size fits all’. The numbers in attendance at a networking event depend on what you want to achieve from that network and should reflect those goals. Think about the best events you have attended. How many people were there and how much of that success depended on the turnout, large or small?
Before asking anyone how many people will be there, ask yourself what you want to achieve from your own presence.
Labelled ‘Mr Network’ by The Sun, Andy Lopata was called ‘one of Europe’s leading business networking strategists’ by the Financial Times.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Andy, interesting post. Thank you for writing it.
I completely understand your points about quality over quantity. In the BNI we have mini teams [power teams] as you may well know. This acts as smaller versions of the chapter – focussed on complimentary services, and businesses.
I am also part of a focussed group of businesses which mentor one another and find it very useful.
Check out my post for a local networking group. I think we have a lot in common
http://blog.anafternooninthepub.co.uk/2012/01/dipping-your-toes.html
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks for your comment Glen. I’m pleased that my thoughts resonated with you, and it’s great that you’re working closely with other local businesses around St Albans to support each other.
It’s key that you’re mentoring each other rather than simply trying to sell. To do so effectively, relationships are the key, You are clearly aware that the strength of the relationships you build are the cornerstone of what you want to achieve, and that comes from a tight group who get to know each other than a mass of different people coming in and out each time.
This is so true. I once held an event that we had hoped to have over 500 people at, and only 70 attended. Afterwards they keynote speaker told me that he had sold twice as many books at our event than at another where over 300 people were present. Sometimes – maybe oftentimes – it’s about the quality, not the quantity.
Thank you Beth. You are so right, I would go as far as to suggest that the quality of the attendees should always be more important than the number attending.
Quality may refer to relevance to each other, understanding and commitment to effective networking or a range of other factors. The key is that it’s not just a number of people thrown together randomly to fill a room.