What the first edition reveals before the second edition of an event
Every first edition of an event leaves behind valuable traces: registered profiles, meetings that actually took place, and those that were suggested but not accepted. This data answers concrete questions even before planning what comes next.
Which types of profiles matched best? Which algorithm-suggested meetings were declined most often? Which participants said, in a post-event survey, that they did not find the contacts they were looking for?
These answers directly guide the adjustments to make, far more effectively than a simple hunch about what should change.
It is also worth examining the qualitative comments collected after the event, not just the matchmaking statistics. A participant who explains in detail why a suggested meeting did not match their expectations often provides richer information than a simple decline rate, and helps correct a compatibility criterion that the numbers alone would not have revealed.
Adjusting matchmaking rather than the scale of the event
The temptation, for a second edition, is often to add exhibitors, speakers or activities. But a bigger event is not automatically an event where you meet more relevant people.
Adjusting matchmaking criteria, based on what the first edition revealed, generally has a more direct effect on the number of qualified meetings. A poorly calibrated compatibility criterion, corrected for the second edition, can on its own double the meeting acceptance rate. A guide on organizing B2B events points out that generating qualified leads depends mainly on how the details are orchestrated, not just on the scale of the event.
Reviewing participant profile questions
A participant profile that is too vague, or on the contrary too detailed, hurts matchmaking quality. After a first edition, it becomes possible to identify which profile questions actually helped create good meetings and which ones only made the registration form longer.
A question that seemed relevant on paper, but that few participants filled out with precision, is worth rewording or dropping altogether. Conversely, an open field that revealed precise needs, hard to capture with checkboxes, can be kept and even highlighted near the top of the form for the second edition.
Building loyalty among participants from one edition to the next
A participant satisfied with their meetings at the first edition becomes a natural ambassador for the second. These returning participants also bring an often underestimated advantage: they arrive with an existing matchmaking history, which makes it possible to suggest even more relevant meetings than the year before.
This loyalty-building requires a communication effort distinct from the one used to attract new participants. A message that recalls the standout meetings from the first edition, rather than a plain generic invitation, reassures the returning participant that the second edition will account for their past experience rather than starting from scratch.
The table below compares the typical approach of a first edition with that of a data-optimized second edition.
Element
First edition
Optimized second edition
Participant profiles
Generic, built from scratch
Adjusted based on what worked
Matchmaking criteria
Based on assumptions
Based on real meetings
Participants
All new
Mix of new and returning
Main objective
Raise awareness of the event
Maximize qualified meetings
An article on seven essential criteria for choosing an event networking platform can also help verify whether the tool used for the first edition provides the right reports for this analysis.
What actually costs money (and what shouldn’t)
Many organizers associate a better second edition with a bigger budget, for the venue, catering or promotion. Yet improving matchmaking mostly relies on analyzing existing data and making configuration adjustments, costs that are generally far lower than those of expanding the event.
A poorly planned expansion can even hurt the quality of meetings, diluting participants’ attention among too many profiles unrelated to their goals. Before investing in a bigger venue or more exhibitors, it is worth confirming that the first edition’s matchmaking was already working well for the existing profiles.
An article on the keys to success for organizing a successful B2B event details several practices that cost little but make a measurable difference in the quality of meetings.
Making the second edition the best edition
The second edition of an event offers a unique opportunity to work from real data rather than assumptions. By adjusting participant profiles and matchmaking criteria based on what worked, or didn’t, at the first edition, it becomes possible to double the number of qualified meetings without necessarily increasing the event’s budget.
Organizers who want to analyze their first edition’s data before planning the next one can request a demo of the platform to see what reports are available.
Frequently asked questions
How can qualified meetings be doubled at the second edition of an event?
To double qualified meetings at the second edition of an event, start by analyzing data from the first edition: accepted meetings, declined ones and participant feedback. Adjusting matchmaking criteria based on these results generally has a bigger effect than expanding the event, since the problem rarely comes from the number of participants but rather from how they are matched with one another.
Should the format change completely between two editions?
Not necessarily. A complete format change often deprives the organizer of comparable data between the two editions. It is generally more useful to keep the general structure while adjusting matchmaking criteria and profile questions based on what the first edition revealed, rather than starting over with an entirely different formula.
How can you tell if the first edition’s matchmaking worked well?
The rate of accepted meetings relative to those proposed, along with feedback collected in a post-event survey, gives a good indication. A low acceptance rate for certain profiles often signals a matchmaking criterion worth revisiting before the second edition.
