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 week 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.