Events worth attending
Judge attending, exhibiting and speaking separately against what would have to be true.
On this page
Where this comes from
This guide is distilled from src/features/growth-kit/help/content/market.ts. When the guide and Growth-OS disagree, that document is the one to trust, and the difference is worth reporting.
Three questions, three costs
Attending needs one person worth meeting to be in the room. A stand is bought before anybody walks past it. Speaking costs preparation days no record holds. Growth-OS judges the three separately, because a yes to one is not a yes to another, and each recommendation names the one question it has to answer.
Six signals are read from our own records: ICP density among recorded attendees, companies we already track, competitors we hold a battlecard for, partners, whether our records name the location, and whether an objective or bet this would advance exists. Partners reads unknown permanently and says why: no record kind stores a partner relationship, so nothing you type would answer it, and it is excluded from every verdict.
The attendee list does the most work
Write who attends one name per line. Each line is matched on its own against company titles and domains, so two names on one line cannot spell a third company between them. Lines that resolve drive the ICP density and target account signals; lines that match nothing are listed, and that list is the cheapest lead list on the page.
The economics are yours
Growth-OS holds no attendance data, no conversion rate and no deal value, and it says so above the form. You type the cost, the qualified conversations you expect, the conversation to won deal percentage and the value of a won deal, and you state the currency. Until a currency is stated nothing is shown as an amount, because a figure with no unit beside it is not a cost.
Read the break-even multiple rather than the point estimate: it says how far every lever has to move together, and it states that no single figure is more sensitive than another. The figures live on the planning view and are not saved to the event record.
The retrospective, and what it will not let you say
Once the outcome field on the event record has text, the retrospective compares what you expected with what you observed in the same four terms. A figure you cannot supply is passed through as unrecorded, never as a measurement of zero.
Two lists appear side by side, and the second one is the one to read before the meeting: it names the conclusions this single comparison does not support. Below three recorded outcomes of the same participation, nothing is described as a pattern across events of this shape.
Was this page helpful?
Feedback is stored only in this browser in the starter implementation.