Conference networking is usually about practical value rather than collecting the largest possible number of contacts. In Freeman’s July 2025 Networking Syndicated Survey, 61% of attendees at in-person professional events said they network to learn something new for their role or organization, while 56% measured success by gaining ideas for professional priorities or challenges. The survey included 4,114 respondents: 2,326 attendees, 1,581 exhibitors, and 207 event organizers. Because the attendee sample included 42% conference attendees and 58% trade-show attendees, the attendee figures below describe in-person professional-event participants rather than conferences alone.
Contents
- Why participants network
- How networking success is measured
- Preferred networking formats
- What makes networking more valuable
- Barriers and reactions to networking sessions
- Personalization and pre-event networking
Why participants network
The leading reason attendees network is learning. Freeman reported that 61% network to learn something new for their role or organization. The next most common motivation is maintaining a useful professional problem-solving network: 58% network to identify contacts for future challenges, questions, or idea sharing.
Commercial and collaborative goals are also common. Among attendees, 54% network to identify potential collaboration, commercial opportunities, or partnerships. Other motivations are more targeted: 22% network for self-development, 20% to reconnect with prior acquaintances, and 20% to meet experts or influencers. A further 14% network to identify competition their company should be aware of.
Exhibitors place even more emphasis on opportunity discovery. In the survey, 63% of exhibitors network to identify potential collaboration, commercial opportunities, or partnerships. That makes partnership and commercial discovery the leading reported exhibitor motivation, compared with the attendee emphasis on learning and future idea sharing.
These results describe overlapping motivations, not a single-choice ranking. Most questions in the survey allowed respondents to select up to three options or select all that applied, so the percentages do not sum to 100%. The source reports these figures for July 2025 and does not present them as forecasts.
How networking success is measured
Attendees tend to judge networking by what it helps them do after or during an event. Freeman found that 56% measure success by gaining new ideas for addressing professional priorities or challenges. A positive return signal also matters: 51% measure success by whether the event makes them want to return in the future.
The next measures are more specific to follow-up and discovery. Among attendees, 43% measure success by identifying new providers or vendors for further investigation, and 37% by identifying a subject-matter expert for connection. Social and relationship outcomes are also visible: 33% look for a sense of belonging or community, while another 33% measure success by the number of individuals they stay in touch with six to twelve months after the event. The number of immediate contacts made is a measure for 32% of attendees.
Exhibitors use a more lead-oriented measure. Fifty-nine percent measure networking success by the number of new leads acquired. This difference is useful for event planning: the same networking activity may be valuable to an attendee because it generates an idea, but valuable to an exhibitor because it creates a qualified lead. The survey does not establish that one measure is more effective than another; it shows different definitions of a successful interaction.
| Networking success measure | Attendees | Exhibitors |
|---|---|---|
| New ideas for professional priorities or challenges | 56% | — |
| Event makes them want to return | 51% | — |
| New providers or vendors to investigate | 43% | — |
| Subject-matter expert for connection | 37% | — |
| New leads acquired | — | 59% |
| People still in touch with after 6–12 months | 33% | — |
| New contacts made | 32% | — |
Source: Freeman Networking Trends Report, July 2025. An em dash means the supplied survey result did not provide a corresponding figure for that group in this comparison.
Preferred networking formats
Structured relevance is the most popular format among attendees. Fifty-one percent prefer industry topic-specific discussions for networking at in-person professional events. This preference is followed by themed receptions, parties, or concerts at 37%, informal networking with no topic, guidance, or specific subject matter at 35%, discussions about professional challenges at 34%, and discussions with speakers or subject-matter experts after general or education sessions at 34%.
Exhibitors show a similar pattern, with industry topic-specific discussions again leading at 55%. Themed receptions, parties, or concerts are preferred by 37% of exhibitors, while 36% prefer informal networking without a topic, guidance, or specific subject matter. Personal or common-interest discussions attract 32%, and 29% prefer discussions with speakers or subject-matter experts after general or education sessions.
The format results suggest that networking does not have to mean one kind of room or one kind of event. A conference program can include topic-led conversations for people seeking relevance, social formats for people who prefer a broader setting, and post-session access for people who want to continue an educational discussion. These are reported preferences, not instructions that every participant will respond in the same way.
What makes networking more valuable
The most widely reported value driver is simple hospitality. Among attendees, 70% say complimentary food and drinks make networking at in-person professional events more valuable. The same factor is reported by 65% of exhibitors.
Conversation support is also important. Forty-nine percent of attendees say prompts related to industry topics or challenges make networking more valuable. Forty-two percent say a guide or moderator to advance discussion and prompt input helps, while 37% identify icebreakers as a value driver.
Exhibitors report a similar ordering, although the percentages differ. Industry-related prompts matter to 47% of exhibitors. A guide or moderator matters to 36%, and icebreakers matter to 39%.
| Feature that can add value | Attendees | Exhibitors |
|---|---|---|
| Complimentary food and drinks | 70% | 65% |
| Prompts about industry topics or challenges | 49% | 47% |
| Guide or moderator to advance discussion | 42% | 36% |
| Icebreakers | 37% | 39% |
These figures are based on overlapping responses, so they should not be treated as a budget allocation formula. They do show that participants identify both environmental support and conversation structure as part of a valuable networking experience.
Barriers and reactions to networking sessions
The word “networking” itself produces mixed reactions. Among attendees, 10% say a session explicitly labeled networking makes them anxious or skeptical of its value and less likely to attend. For 41%, the label does not affect how they feel about the session or their likelihood of attending. Twenty percent say the explicit label makes them more interested or likely to attend.
Exhibitors report a similar split with somewhat higher positive and negative reactions: 14% say the label makes them anxious or skeptical and less likely to attend, 42% say it makes no difference, and 24% say it makes them more interested or likely to attend.
The broader experience can also feel uncomfortable or overly commercial. Among attendees, 34% report that networking feels too sales-oriented, and 31% report that it feels awkward. Among exhibitors, 34% report that networking feels too sales-oriented. The supplied Freeman results do not provide an exhibitor percentage for awkwardness in this set of figures.
For event planners, these responses distinguish awareness from appeal. Some people need a clear label to recognize an opportunity, while others may be deterred by the expectation of forced or sales-heavy interaction. The survey quantifies those reactions but does not test a particular session name, room design, or facilitation method.
Personalization and pre-event networking
Personalization is important to a substantial minority of both groups, but current effectiveness is rated lower. Among attendees, 34% rate a personalized networking experience as very or extremely important, while 35% rate their current personalized networking experience as very or extremely effective. Among exhibitors, 44% rate personalization as very or extremely important, and 39% rate their current personalized networking experience as very or extremely effective.
The survey also identifies the information people want before an event. Forty-three percent of attendees say knowing which experts or influencers will be available to meet would help them make the most of networking. Forty-two percent say the ability to connect with targeted attendees or exhibitors and select whom to meet would help. Curated recommendations for meet-ups, exhibitors, and participants would help 40% of attendees.
Exhibitors place particular emphasis on targeted selection. Fifty-two percent say the ability to connect with targeted attendees or exhibitors and select whom to meet would help them network. Curated recommendations for meet-ups, exhibitors, and participants would help 43% of exhibitors.
| Pre-event networking signal | Attendees | Exhibitors |
|---|---|---|
| Personalized networking is very or extremely important | 34% | 44% |
| Current personalized networking is very or extremely effective | 35% | 39% |
| Help from targeted connections and choosing whom to meet | 42% | 52% |
| Help from curated recommendations | 40% | 43% |
| Help from knowing available experts or influencers | 43% | — |
The figures support a practical distinction between personalization as a priority and personalization as an experience that already works well. They also show why pre-event information can matter: participants may want to decide which conversations are relevant before arriving, rather than rely entirely on chance encounters.
Across the July 2025 Freeman survey, the clearest participation pattern is purposeful variety. Participants report networking for learning, ideas, collaboration, leads, community, and future relationships. Topic-specific discussions lead format preferences, hospitality is the most common reported value driver, and targeted introductions are especially important to exhibitors. At the same time, awkwardness and sales concerns remain measurable barriers, making the design and framing of each networking opportunity part of the event-planning task.