Yup, the tix for Beers & Innovation 4 on 14th September are all gone now.
I’m operating a waiting list so email me (deirdre . molloy @ nmk.co.uk) if you want your name added to it; and likewise if you’ve booked and can’t make it.
We are looking at getting a bigger venue for Beers & Innovation, but for now our venue on Dean St is maxed-out at 55 people.
It’s tricky – on the one hand the smaller venue and crowd lends itself to more freeflowing discussion with the audience, which is the cornerstone of the event – fact.
On the other, I know this event could be a LOT bigger. But what do you sacrafice in swelling the numbers? The quality of the discussion? Is it enough to say – I was there, I heard so-and-so speak, I met X people..?
Less is more?
That sounds like so many other events I’ve been to recently – conferences comprised of keynotes and remote panels (where the disconnect is huge, or confined to the backchannel), evening seminars that have spookily identical speaker line-ups every time, networking bashes where there’s little – if anything – sensible said.
[BTW – I’ll buy the first person to name these 3 events correctly a pint 😉 ]
So we’ve got all those things, and good things come out of them, true. But we don’t need more clones and real innovation is still under-served and under-valued in this country. Start-ups often exist in very isolated and un-supported circumstances. More seasoned players have nuggets of insight and useful perspectives.
If B&I is to be a collaboration with the audience on sharing ideas and building a community, what’s the right thing to do? Keep it small but perfectly formed? Branch out and risk blanding out?
I need to know what the flow is before I can go with it…