Attendee matchmaking can improve delegate NPS when it helps people make the connections they came for without turning networking into a stream of unwanted sales requests. The useful question is not “can we recommend people?” It is “can we make a relevant introduction at the moment a delegate is ready to act?”
Good matchmaking starts with intent, not profile similarity. Two attendees from the same industry may have nothing useful to discuss. A buyer seeking a new implementation partner and a practitioner comparing rollout approaches may both benefit from a conversation, but they need different kinds of introductions.
Collect the smallest useful set of signals
Ask registrants what they hope to accomplish, what topics they want to discuss, and which roles or organizations would be useful to meet. Keep the form short and explain how each answer improves their experience. Optional questions get better answers when attendees can see the benefit.
Useful matching signals include:
- Role, company type, and functional area
- One or two goals for attending
- Topics, challenges, or use cases they want to explore
- Buying, partnering, hiring, or learning intent
- Preferred meeting format and available time windows
Do not infer a person’s readiness to buy from their job title or treat a registration as consent to receive sponsor outreach. Let people choose whether they want peer introductions, supplier meetings, or both. That consent makes a recommendation feel like a service rather than a lead-routing system.
Design for an introduction, not an endless directory
An attendee directory is useful, but it puts the discovery work on the delegate. Matchmaking should reduce that work with a small number of explainable recommendations. Show why each person was suggested: a shared topic, complementary role, relevant project, or mutual interest in a session.
At PMWC 2027, January 27–29 in Santa Clara, a precision-medicine audience could benefit from different paths for clinicians, researchers, technology providers, and investors. A single “people you may know” feed would blur those paths. Separate opt-in tracks and clear meeting goals give attendees more control over the kind of connection they are accepting.
Use a simple recommendation flow:
| Step | Delegate experience | Organizer control |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Set goals | Select the outcomes and topics that matter | Define eligible match types |
| 2. Receive suggestions | See a small number of relevant, explained recommendations | Review quality and suppress poor-fit combinations |
| 3. Opt in | Accept, decline, or save a possible meeting | Confirm mutual interest before scheduling |
| 4. Meet | Get a time, place, and short context prompt | Protect session time and prevent double-booking |
| 5. Give feedback | Rate the relevance and usefulness of the connection | Improve future recommendations |
The 2025 Bizzabo networking report found that 42% of organizers reported low or very low engagement with networking features, citing issues such as weak personalization and attendee discomfort. The implication is practical: adding another networking tab does not create value by itself. Give delegates a reason to use it and an easy way to decline.
Make mutual interest the default
For buyer-supplier and partner introductions, use a mutual opt-in model. A request should identify the reason for the meeting, the available time, and the person making the request. Avoid automatically placing attendees on calendars or publishing contact details beyond the permissions they chose.
Peer matchmaking can work differently. A small curated roundtable or group discussion may serve delegates who do not want one-to-one meetings. Let attendees choose between formats rather than assuming every networking goal requires a scheduled appointment.
Build basic safeguards into the program:
- Limit the number of outbound requests per attendee.
- Give delegates controls to pause recommendations or opt out entirely.
- Do not make acceptance a condition of using the event app.
- Provide staff support for rescheduling and accessibility needs.
- Use conversation prompts sparingly, as a starting point rather than a script.
Measure whether the matches were useful
NPS can show whether the broader event experience is improving, but it does not isolate matchmaking on its own. Pair it with direct measures:
- Match acceptance and completed-meeting rates
- A one-question usefulness rating after each meeting
- The share of delegates who made at least one relevant connection
- Follow-up actions such as a second meeting, introduction, or saved contact
- NPS and open-text feedback segmented by matchmaking participation
Compare participants with similar non-participants, and ask an open question: “What made this introduction useful or not useful?” That feedback will reveal issues a dashboard cannot, such as mismatched expectations, poor timing, or a room that had too many sellers pursuing the same buyers.
Forrester’s 2025 B2B event survey reported an 8% drop in overall event satisfaction from 2024 to 2025. One feature will not solve a full attendee-experience problem, but purposeful networking can remove a common source of friction: the effort required to find the right people in a crowded program.
Improve the next event from the feedback
Review match quality by role, topic, format, and time of day. If peer matches earn strong feedback but sponsor meetings do not, adjust the eligibility rules or give attendees clearer choices. If requests go unanswered, test fewer recommendations, better explanations, or a different scheduling moment.
Use Scryon’s organizer tools to understand audience composition before the event and build a program around the relationships it can realistically support. Pair the matchmaking plan with the day-of-event playbook so staff can protect meeting time and resolve issues on site.
The goal is not to maximize introductions. It is to give more delegates at least one connection they would not have made on their own. Try Scryon free to start with the audience context that makes those introductions more relevant.