I understand your argument as: allowing anyone to attend would mean the event includes all the people currently approved, plus those deterred by the admissions bar, plus some attendees who we would have previously rejected. If that latter group is small (e.g., 16%), that might not have much of an effect, and the event reaches more of our target audience.
Here’s why we’re not confident in this reasoning:
Our primary concern is that removing the bar would significantly increase the volume of applications from people we’d otherwise reject, beyond the current number of applicants who are not approved (since there is no longer a cost to applying).
It’s unclear if removing it would draw in a sufficient number of “deterred” people, to make up for the other costs.
Much of the event’s impact comes from the quality of connections attendees make, whether through Swapcard or impromptu networking (lunches, meet ups, etc.). If the average attendee’s fit drops, we worry this would significantly reduce the expected quality of those interactions, especially impromptu ones. That could, in turn, have a greater negative impact than I think you’re imagining and worsening spin-off effects over time (e.g. attendees mingle less, senior professionals are less keen to attend over time).
Hey Scott, thanks for the comment!
I understand your argument as: allowing anyone to attend would mean the event includes all the people currently approved, plus those deterred by the admissions bar, plus some attendees who we would have previously rejected. If that latter group is small (e.g., 16%), that might not have much of an effect, and the event reaches more of our target audience.
Here’s why we’re not confident in this reasoning:
Our primary concern is that removing the bar would significantly increase the volume of applications from people we’d otherwise reject, beyond the current number of applicants who are not approved (since there is no longer a cost to applying).
It’s unclear if removing it would draw in a sufficient number of “deterred” people, to make up for the other costs.
Much of the event’s impact comes from the quality of connections attendees make, whether through Swapcard or impromptu networking (lunches, meet ups, etc.). If the average attendee’s fit drops, we worry this would significantly reduce the expected quality of those interactions, especially impromptu ones. That could, in turn, have a greater negative impact than I think you’re imagining and worsening spin-off effects over time (e.g. attendees mingle less, senior professionals are less keen to attend over time).