Contents
The common assumption is that people come to networking events to network. Most of them don’t. They come hoping that somebody else will start the conversation. To host a networking event that works, you build the guest list so people genuinely need each other, put hosts in the room whose job is introductions, choose a room and a sound level that let people hear, and plan the follow-up before the doors open.
Watch the first twenty minutes of almost any networking reception and the pattern is clear. Colleagues who arrived together stay together. People check their phones by the wall. A few confident guests circulate while everyone else waits for them to come over. By the time the room loosens, half the evening has gone, some guests have already slipped away, and they tell themselves they will follow up online with the two people they managed to meet. This is not a failure of the guests. It is a design problem, and in our business we tend to leave it to luck.
The coffee break does what the networking session only promises
What makes something a networking event is that its main product is the conversations between guests rather than the content on stage. It might be a stand-alone reception, a sector breakfast, the evening program of a congress, a matchmaking session at a trade fair or the informal half of a corporate gathering, and success is measured by who met whom rather than by who spoke. That sounds obvious, yet it changes the organizer’s job completely. In a conference, the organizer designs what people will hear; here, the organizer designs the conditions under which strangers decide to talk to each other, which is harder and usually gets far less thought.
At congresses and corporate events almost everywhere, many of the most useful conversations happen in places that are not on the program at all: the coffee break, the lunch queue, the corridor outside the main hall, the terrace or garden next to the venue during a long pause. Ask people afterwards what was worth their day and they often name someone they met there. The reason is simple enough. In a coffee break, people have something to do with their hands, a natural reason to stand beside someone and an easy way out after a few minutes, and since nobody has announced that it is time to network, nobody feels the pressure of it. A formal networking session in a big, empty room often does the opposite, because people feel watched, there is no natural reason to approach anyone and the shy majority waits.
So rather than planning a separate session, I start by asking how the whole event could feel like a good coffee break. Longer breaks help, as do tea and coffee stations spread around the room rather than one long table against the wall, food in small portions that can be eaten standing, and a program disciplined enough not to run into the time set aside for talking. None of this is dramatic, and in my experience it outperforms every formal format I have seen tried.
Who is in the room decides more than what happens in it
A networking event works when no guest has to approach a stranger without a reason.
The first source of reasons is the guest list, and many networking events fail before they start because the list is either too uniform or too random. If everyone already knows each other there is nothing to gain, and if nobody has anything in common there is nothing to talk about. The lists that work are built deliberately, mixing people who genuinely need each other (buyers and suppliers, associations and destinations, young professionals and senior figures in the same field) while keeping enough shared ground for a first sentence. The MICE and tourism world already thinks this way, since hosted buyer programs at trade fairs rest on exactly this logic, and corporate events can borrow it easily. A dealer meeting that seats dealers from different regions together, instead of each with their own regional manager, produces far more useful conversation than one where everyone sits with the people they see every month. Sharing part of the guest list in advance, with consent, gives guests someone specific to look for, and one such reason is often enough to get a person moving across the room. Balance matters as much as mix, though. An evening sold as a meeting of buyers and suppliers that ends up with forty suppliers circling the same five buyers is worse than no networking at all for both sides, so the invitation should say honestly who the evening is for and how it works, and nobody should be promised a meeting with a particular person who has not agreed to it.
The second source of reasons is hosting, which is not the same as having hostesses at the door. Most networking events have young people at the registration desk checking names and handing out badges, and that is useful, but hosting means having people inside the room whose job is to introduce guests to one another. They might be people from the organization company running the evening, people from the client company, committee members of an association or a few well connected guests asked in advance to play the part. They know who is there, they notice someone standing alone and they bring that person over with a sentence about why the two should meet. One introduction like that can change a guest’s entire evening. Hosts also need to know what to do on the less pleasant side of the job, when a guest keeps pressing someone who clearly wants to leave or a supplier works the room with a sales pitch at every table. Some professional bodies write this into their rules; the ACM COMPASS code of conduct, for example, applies to informal interactions between attendees as much as to the sessions, which I think is the right instinct for any evening whose whole point is informal contact.
Badges serve hosts and guests alike, and they are often badly designed. A name in small letters under a large event logo cannot be read from conversational distance; a first name in big type, the company and perhaps one line about what the person does gives everyone a way in. At international events, a readable badge also spares foreign guests the small embarrassment of mispronouncing a name they did not quite catch.
What does the room itself do to a conversation?
Rooms shape conversations more than organizers expect. Hotel ballrooms in most cities are built for large seated dinners, and a reception for a hundred people in a hall meant for six hundred feels cold, with guests drifting to the edges and the middle left bare. A smaller room, or a large one divided with screens or furniture, makes the same number of people feel like a gathering, as long as the screens do not block the exits marked in the venue’s safety plan. High tables let people stand and put down a cup without committing to a seat, a few lower corners give older guests and tired ones somewhere to sit and talk, and long rows of chairs facing a stage tell everyone the evening is about watching. Think about who can actually reach those high tables and hear in that room, too; the W3C’s guidance on accessible events is written mainly for presentations, but its habit of asking about participation needs before the event carries over to a reception very naturally.
Sound is the most underestimated element. Background music that is pleasant in an empty room becomes a wall once the room fills, and people stop talking because they cannot hear each other; in many venues someone ends up asking for the volume to be lowered halfway through the evening, when it would have been easy to decide the level beforehand and assign one person to check it once the room is full. Food and refreshments work as furniture as well. Tea, coffee, fresh juices and good food stations are the natural meeting points at most events I work on, so where they stand, which is usually settled in the logistics plan without a thought for conversation, decides where people gather, and a well placed tea station does more for conversation than a long buffet pushed against a wall.
Most of this can be checked in the half hour before the doors open, and I like to walk the room with a short list in hand:
- the music level, judged against a full room rather than an empty one, with one named person to adjust it later
- tea and coffee stations spread out, not lined up against a single wall
- badges printed with first names large enough to read at arm’s length
- hosts who have seen the guest list and know a few people they want to introduce
- somewhere to sit for those who need it, away from the speakers
Structure, used lightly, helps shy guests a great deal. Table hosts who each lead a small conversation on a particular topic, with guests choosing which table to join, give people a reason to sit with strangers, and for the hosts themselves it is a quieter and often more convincing kind of thought leadership than a talk from the stage. Short rounds of arranged meetings, of the kind used in matchmaking programs at tourism fairs, work well when guests really do need each other and the schedule is respected, and a single opening question printed on a card works in a similar way at a dinner. The trap is overdoing it, since games, forced ice-breakers and rules about switching tables every few minutes make many professional guests uncomfortable, and they are more likely to leave early than to play along. To my mind, structure should feel like an invitation and never like an instruction.
The evening is worth only what the follow-up makes possible
Guests who met interesting people want to find them again, and they often realize the next morning that they never took a card or wrote down a surname. Event apps promise to solve all this with profiles and meeting requests. In my experience they help at large congresses where participants are used to them and help very little at smaller events, where most guests never download the app at all; if you do use one, someone has to encourage guests to sign in during the weeks before, otherwise it becomes a cost line with no effect.
What reliably works is simpler. Encouraging guests to note, before they say goodbye, what they actually agreed with each other (a call, a demonstration, an introduction to a colleague) does more than any app. A short message the day after, with a list of participants who agreed to share their details, a few photos from the evening and perhaps a reminder of the topics discussed at each table, turns a pleasant evening into something useful. Under data protection rules in most countries, Europe’s GDPR among them, consent for sharing contact details is best collected at registration, which means this part of the follow-up is actually decided weeks before the event, when the form is written.
Networking events fail quietly, and that is what makes them dangerous for organizers. Nobody complains; people leave a little early, say it was nice, and the attendance figure goes into the report as a success. The real measure is whether people met someone they would not otherwise have met, and that depends on the list, the hosts, the room, the sound and a few light structures far more than on the venue or the catering budget.
The best networking evenings I have been part of had one thing in common, and it was never the venue. Someone in the room had made it their personal business that nobody would stand alone for long.