From the title I assumed this post was arguing against attending conferences. It in fact argues for attending, just going in with a clear agenda and being prepared.
I agree on most points...and while I think being prepared and scheduling meetings in advance is a good idea... You should leave yourself open for serendipity.
Richard Wiseman did a study on what makes someone lucky or unlucky and randomness is a big variable.
he writes,"Many people who feel unlucky are creatures of habit and are so focused on a result that they fail to see everything else floating around them."
So it's a good idea to attend conferences and develop a strategy to randomnly meet people (I.e. introduce yourself to everyone wearing blue sneakers, or some other random and arbitrary idea.) You never know who you'll meet. You may just get lucky :)
Well, the author doesn't say that you shouldn't meet random people, just that you should have a plan to meet at least a few people that might be interesting.
He does write, "You meet some people, you talk but the effect is close to none."
He is perhaps right from an immediate agenda perspective...but in my experience some of those relationships translate into much greater long term opportunities.
I have a theory that the strongest relationships we have are people we have interacted with in two separate places. (i.e. summer camp and than college.)
Same goes for conferences, some of the strongest relationships were built by two random people meeting up at two different conferences.
When I joined them they were looking move the business (power monitoring) from residential to commercial.
They ended up going to some specific conferences associated with trade groups I didn't even know existed eg: RFMA (Restaurant Facilities Management Association).
They set up meetings if they could before hand. In the three years I was there they went back to some conferences, dropped others. It was about building relationships and they met some interesting people that actually became customers. They got leads that didn't pan out. Overall it was a positive.
Don't forget to start early with prep. Shipping conference booth stuff out is a pain and slow and often needs "Freight" class shipping. (Its big and heavy).
> But if you are going to be 101st no-name company, my advice is to save money and go as a visitor.
Who the hell is going to say to themselves, "Oh wow yeah this is totally me, my idea and product is completely not worthy of distinction."
The problem is that everyone thinks they're the Next Big Thing, or are at least fooling themselves into thinking that. Okay, maybe not Next Big Thing, but certainly no one's going to admit to being "101st no-name company", right?
Our startup is actually quite big, but I prefer not to go to conferences presenting the company. I have done it, but feel that they are not the right place to look for customers in our business (which is online B2C, I would say). In the end, I would like to go just as visitor, have fun etc, instead of trying to promote the brand.
Never go to present your company or brand. Go to present some cool new technology or research (that your company has developed). If you present something that catches people imagination, they'll go out of their way to hunt you down and find out more about your company.
People like conferences because they can get out of the office and socialize with people who are similar to them. And surprisingly enough, quite often new business partnerships, employments or, yes, friendships start at conferences. Even with no rigid planning beforehand.
I always go to conferences, but usually not for the reasons most people go. Not only do I do some low level networking, but for me its more about the tools and techniques.
Every single conference I've gone to, I've found new tools and techniques people are using in enterprise environments as well as smaller start up environments that I can start to work with, or experiment with. There's been a lot of tools and techniques I've been able to integrate with my workflow which came directly from conferences.
I wonder why software startup related conferences are usually not as productive as consumer trade shows. From my own experience the former is likely to be a total waste of time with no outcome for your startup, whereas in electronics-related shows you will definitely meet some new suppliers, retailers, investors (and of course your competitors too). You almost always leave a consumer electronics show with something. Just curious, why is this?
From my experience it's just startups showing their stuff, and investors looking for stuff to invest in. That's about it. It's mostly interesting when you are in one of those 2 groups.
The message of the article is correct, but the details are all wrong (maybe). Make decisions that drive customers to you, absolutely. But the actual decisions and actions to make that happen will differ for every company, depending on your size, market presence, and industry.
Should one go to a conference with no plan? Maybe - if it's a change of pace and a good conference, it will probably do one good (ie, maybe not having a plan will force one to think on their feet and make snap decisions on which tracks to go to). On the other hand, should one do anything "non-deliberately"[1]? Probably not. Ideally, one should always be thinking critically, analyzing, learning, making connections. Conferences just highlight this fact because they are high cost and high opportunity.
Dogmatic thinking is never good. I've been on many conferences and many could been perceived as wasted time. And on one which was one of the worst I met tons of 'useless' people and by accident one guy who invested in me $4M.
So you never know who will be 'useless' and on conferences you meet so many people in a very short time, that it's ultra efficient. And you get appointments easier because meetings can be quicker.
However, most important with any conference is that you try to get at least 5-10 appointments for a conference which means you have to reach out to min 50
The argument against getting a booth (and just being a visitor) I don't quite agree with.
One of the more annoying things I've found at conferences, as an exhibitor, is when people come to your booth to sales pitch you on their thing.
If you want customers, don't go as a visitor and pitch the exhibitors. Get the booth, but only if you are the right size where it feels like the leads will exist and it will pay off.
You can also meet some investors at booths too.
It helps though if people have some awareness of what you do and signage that makes that VERY clear.
I don't think your annoyance about people selling to you at your booth is an argument for having one. Yes, it's annoying to you, but I'm guessing those people are glad to have had the chance to sell to you, even though you were annoyed, which they wouldn't have had if they just had a booth somewhere that you wouldn't have gone to.
Having really good "signage" on your clothing seems like a good strategy to making yourself a roving "booth". Business cards are probably the most important thing to hand out, and you can carry them on you.
It does mean you have to more intelligently select people to talk to, rather than relying completely on them self-selecting to talk to you.
Of course, by far the best way to get noticed at a conference is to give a great talk.
If you are crowded with potential customers, the guy trying to sell you a product you don't want is not where you are going to spend your attention. They also often are very slow to get the hint.
I'm not at all arguing that they aren't annoying. I'm saying that from their perspective, it seems like a reasonable choice. Cheaper and not stuck at a booth. If you're crowded with customers, then you're probably fine with a booth, but roaming is probably a better solution for the people whose booths are empty.
sure, in this one case you're right. But this title change would set a dangerous precedent. At Hacker News, we might soon end up with titles like the New York Times.
My strategy for interacting with people at conferences is to not talk about my products until they ask.
This keeps my prospects list full of only truly interested people and lets me not waste time on false leads.
I do recommend getting a booth, but as long as you are low-key you can get a lot of business done just walking around.
Whether the person has a booth or they are just hanging out at an afterparty, we are there for one reason, which is to find business partners, customers, or jobs.
My product happens to be ideal for booth staff, so I do pitch them at their booths and at networking parties away from booths, but only if they ask to hear the pitch. I am not at all obnoxious about it.
Me: "Hi, I am Leon, please tell me your story"
Them: either tell me their pitch or "Sure, but what do you do?"
If they don't pitch me, I say
Me: "I do many things, but I am more interested in learning more about your product because I talk with many people and recommend many products."
This is where many people do it wrong. If you launch into a pitch the first time they ask you what you do without learning more about them that will likely result in a very weak relationship and add noise into your system.
Them: "We do ..."
Them: "So what do you do?"
If they don't ask, then I simply end the conversation and walk away.
Me: "It's a product for tradeshow exhibitors like you that helps you get your first 1000 customers"
Them: Either a variation of "how do you do that?" or an expression of disinterest.
If they are not interested, I simply end the conversation and walk away. Sometimes, I break that rule, but only where it makes sense and it is obvious that the person is likely to be very interested. Talking to people who are not engaged with you is a great way to hear "Sorry, we are not interested" when you follow up in the future.
Me: "I'll show you [go through a quick demo using my own data]"
Them: either ask me for my card or ask to try with their information (about as strong an indicator as it gets) or express disinterest.
If they don't ask to try my product with their own information, I end the conversation and walk away.
As a result of this strategy, I have 826 highly interested people on my pre-launch list. I also haven't upset anyone because I terminated those conversations without ever pitching the person.
===
There are other things you can do to be more productive at conferences
That attendee to attendee conference networking app that is almost never used for anything except looking at schedules is a good way to create your target list of people you may want to approach. My app actually supports true 1:1 marketing if you wanted to invest that much time into it, but that is usually not necessary.
The key to wasting less time is to terminate unproductive conversations early. It's a flow chart. :) Keep your phone charged and carry external batteries. Have an offline demo available and assume you will not have Internet connectivity.
I agree on most points...and while I think being prepared and scheduling meetings in advance is a good idea... You should leave yourself open for serendipity.
Richard Wiseman did a study on what makes someone lucky or unlucky and randomness is a big variable.
he writes,"Many people who feel unlucky are creatures of habit and are so focused on a result that they fail to see everything else floating around them."
So it's a good idea to attend conferences and develop a strategy to randomnly meet people (I.e. introduce yourself to everyone wearing blue sneakers, or some other random and arbitrary idea.) You never know who you'll meet. You may just get lucky :)
I wrote about the study here... http://www.davidmelamed.com/2014/08/08/master-skill-lucky-co...
Edit: spelling, added quote from study and author of study.