The real reason in-person GTM underperforms

Your team attends dozens of events each year. You invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in booths, sponsorships, travel, and swag. Your reps shake hands, scan badges, and collect business cards. Then everyone flies home, uploads a spreadsheet, and watches those leads slowly die in a queue somewhere between marketing automation and sales follow-up.

Sound familiar? You're not alone. Most B2B organizations experience this exact pattern, year after year. They blame execution. They blame the events themselves. They blame the sales team for not following up fast enough.

But here's the thing: the execution isn't the problem. The mental models are.

The root misconceptions holding in-person GTM back in 2026 aren't about tactics or tools. They're about how organizations think about in-person marketing at a fundamental level. These misconceptions shape investment decisions, team structures, success metrics, and technology choices. They determine whether in-person becomes a compounding revenue channel or remains an expensive checkbox activity.

We've identified ten of these misconceptions. Each one seems reasonable on the surface. Each one quietly undermines your ability to generate pipeline from events. And each one has a clear alternative that changes how you approach in-person go-to-market.

In-person marketing isn't failing because of execution

Most post-event retrospectives focus on tactical improvements. Better booth placement. Sharper messaging. Faster badge scanning. More engaging demos. These adjustments matter, but they're optimizations on a broken foundation.

The teams that struggle with in-person ROI usually have competent people doing reasonable things. Their events look professional. Their reps are personable. Their follow-up sequences exist. Yet pipeline attribution remains murky, conversion rates disappoint, and leadership questions whether events are worth the investment.

Execution improvements can't fix a system designed around flawed assumptions. You can optimize a process that's fundamentally misaligned with revenue goals, but you'll just get more efficient at producing mediocre results.

The hidden cost of outdated mental models

Mental models are the implicit beliefs that guide decisions. They're often invisible because they feel like common sense. Everyone knows events are hard to measure. Everyone knows event teams handle logistics. Everyone knows you figure out lead quality after you get home.

These "obvious" truths carry enormous costs. They justify underinvestment in systems. They excuse poor data quality. They create organizational structures that guarantee handoff failures. The cost isn't just missed revenue. It's the opportunity cost of never building a real in-person GTM capability.

How perception quietly shapes systems, investment, and outcomes

When leadership perceives in-person as inherently unmeasurable, they don't invest in measurement infrastructure. When they perceive event teams as operational, they don't include them in strategy conversations. When they perceive events as one-off moments, they don't build systems that compound.

Perception becomes reality through a thousand small decisions. Budget allocations. Hiring priorities. Technology purchases. Meeting invitations. The misconceptions we'll examine don't just affect how people think about in-person GTM. They shape the actual systems, resources, and outcomes.

Misconception 1: In-person GTM is inherently less sophisticated than digital

Digital marketing teams operate with attribution models, A/B testing frameworks, conversion rate optimization, and automated nurture sequences. In-person teams operate with badge scanners and spreadsheets. This disparity feels natural. Digital is data-rich. In-person is messy and human.

But this perception isn't inevitable. It's a choice that organizations make, reinforced by years of underinvestment.

Why messy and human gets misread as unmeasurable

In-person interactions are complex. A conversation at a booth involves body language, tone, context, and dozens of signals that don't fit neatly into form fields. This complexity leads many organizations to conclude that in-person can't be measured with the same rigor as digital.

That conclusion is wrong. Complexity doesn't mean unmeasurable. It means you need different measurement approaches. The challenge isn't that in-person data doesn't exist. The challenge is that most organizations haven't built systems to capture it.

Key signals available from in-person interactions include:

• Conversation duration and depth indicators
• Questions asked and topics discussed
• Decision-maker identification and role confirmation
• Competitive context and current solution awareness
• Timeline and urgency signals
• Specific pain points articulated in real time

How low expectations justify weak systems and tooling

When organizations believe in-person is inherently less sophisticated, they accept lower standards. They tolerate badge scanners that capture nothing but email addresses. They accept multi-day delays before lead data reaches the CRM. They treat incomplete records as normal.

These low expectations create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Weak systems produce weak data. Weak data produces weak insights. Weak insights justify continued underinvestment in better systems.

The false tradeoff between sophistication and humanity

Some organizations resist in-person measurement because they believe it will make interactions feel transactional. They worry that asking reps to capture data will undermine authentic connection.

This is a false tradeoff. The best in-person GTM systems capture rich data without interrupting natural conversation. They use technology to enhance human interaction, not replace it. A rep who knows a prospect's context before approaching them has a better conversation, not a worse one.

Misconception 2: Event marketers are executional, not revenue-driving

Most organizations treat event marketing as a subset of marketing operations. Event teams handle logistics: booth setup, vendor coordination, swag ordering, travel arrangements. They're measured on whether events happen smoothly, not whether events generate pipeline.

This categorization has consequences.

How success metrics lock teams into logistics and optics

When event teams are measured on execution quality, they optimize for execution quality. They focus on booth aesthetics, attendee experience, and operational smoothness. These things matter, but they're not revenue metrics.

Consider the typical event marketing dashboard:

• Number of events attended
• Badge scans collected
• Booth traffic volume
• Social media mentions
• Attendee satisfaction scores

Notice what's missing? Pipeline generated. Opportunities influenced. Revenue attributed. Conversion rates by event type. The metrics define the mission, and these metrics define a logistics mission.

What happens when event teams are excluded from GTM strategy

When event marketers aren't in strategy conversations, they can't align in-person activities with broader go-to-market priorities. They don't know which accounts sales is pursuing. They don't understand current messaging priorities. They can't coordinate pre-event outreach with demand generation campaigns.

This exclusion creates disconnection. Events become standalone activities rather than integrated components of a revenue motion. The event team optimizes locally while the broader GTM system remains uncoordinated.

Why accountability can't exist without ownership

You can't hold a team accountable for outcomes they don't control. If event marketers own logistics but not strategy, they can't be accountable for revenue. If they don't influence follow-up processes, they can't be accountable for conversion rates. If they don't control data quality, they can't be accountable for attribution.

Real accountability requires real ownership. Event teams that drive revenue need authority over the full in-person GTM process, from pre-event targeting through post-event conversion.

Misconception 3: All in-person interactions are basically the same

Most lead capture systems treat every badge scan identically. A casual booth visitor gets the same record as a decision-maker who spent twenty minutes discussing implementation timelines. Both become rows in a spreadsheet with identical fields.

This flattening destroys information.

How flattening interactions destroys intent signals

In-person interactions contain rich intent signals that digital channels can't match. Someone who seeks you out, asks detailed questions, and discusses specific use cases has demonstrated intent that no website visit can replicate.

But when your capture system only records contact information, you lose this signal. The highly engaged prospect looks identical to the person who stopped by for free socks. Your sales team can't prioritize effectively because they can't distinguish between them.

Why generic leads guarantee generic follow-up

When all leads look the same, they get treated the same. Everyone receives the same nurture sequence. Everyone gets the same follow-up cadence. Everyone gets generic messaging that resonates with no one in particular.

This generic approach fails everyone. High-intent prospects receive irrelevant content and lose interest. Low-intent contacts get sales pressure they didn't ask for and unsubscribe. Neither outcome serves your pipeline goals.

What high-quality interaction data actually looks like

Effective in-person data capture goes beyond contact information. It includes:

• Interaction context and conversation summary
• Specific pain points and use cases discussed
• Current solution and competitive landscape
• Decision timeline and buying stage
• Key stakeholders mentioned
• Next steps agreed upon

This data enables personalized, relevant follow-up. It helps sales prioritize the right conversations. It makes attribution meaningful because you can connect specific interaction quality to downstream outcomes.

Misconception 4: Showing up is the strategy

Many organizations approach events with a presence mindset. They sponsor the conference. They staff the booth. They attend the sessions. They assume that being there creates value.

Presence isn't strategy. It's a prerequisite.

Presence vs purpose in in-person marketing

Presence means you're at the event. Purpose means you know why you're there and what success looks like. Most organizations have presence. Few have purpose.

Purpose requires answering specific questions before the event:

• Which accounts do we most want to engage?
• What conversations do we want to have?
• What information do we need to capture?
• How will we measure success?
• What happens after the event ends?

Without these answers, you're just showing up and hoping for the best.

The danger of celebrating activity without intent

Organizations often celebrate event activity as if it were accomplishment. We attended twelve conferences this quarter. We scanned three thousand badges. We had great booth traffic.

Activity metrics feel good but mean little. They measure effort, not impact. A team that attends fewer events but generates more pipeline is outperforming a team that attends everything and converts nothing.

What should be decided before the event ever starts

Effective in-person GTM requires pre-event planning that most organizations skip:

• Target account lists with prioritization criteria
• Pre-event outreach to schedule meetings
• Conversation guides aligned with current messaging
• Data capture requirements and quality standards
• Follow-up workflows and ownership assignments
• Success metrics and attribution methodology

These decisions shape everything that happens at and after the event. Making them beforehand transforms random activity into intentional motion.

Misconception 5: In-person is about relationships, but relationships don't need systems

Everyone agrees that in-person marketing is about relationships. The handshake, the conversation, the human connection: these are what make events valuable. Many organizations conclude that systematizing relationships would somehow diminish them.

This conclusion confuses documentation with dehumanization.

Why undocumented relationships don't compound

A relationship that exists only in someone's head doesn't compound. When that person leaves the company, the relationship leaves too. When they forget the conversation, the context disappears. When they move to a different role, the connection breaks.

Documented relationships compound. They survive personnel changes. They inform future interactions. They enable coordination across teams. They become organizational assets rather than individual memories.

How keeping it human becomes an excuse for data loss

The phrase "keeping it human" often justifies sloppy data practices. We don't want to make reps fill out forms during conversations. We don't want to interrupt the natural flow. We want authentic connection, not data entry.

These concerns are valid but solvable. Modern capture tools enable quick, unobtrusive documentation. Voice notes, mobile apps, and post-conversation summaries can capture context without disrupting interaction. The choice isn't between humanity and data. It's between thoughtful systems and lazy excuses.

What it means to operationalize relationships without killing authenticity

Operationalizing relationships means creating systems that capture, store, and activate relationship data. It means knowing that Sarah from Acme mentioned budget approval in Q2 before your rep approaches her at the next event. It means coordinating touchpoints across team members. It means building on previous conversations rather than starting from scratch.

Done well, operationalization enhances authenticity. Reps have better conversations because they have context. Prospects feel valued because they're remembered. Relationships deepen because they're continuous.

Misconception 6: In-person is a marketing function, not a GTM motion

Most org charts place event marketing within the marketing department. This makes administrative sense but creates strategic problems. Events become a marketing activity rather than a cross-functional revenue motion.

The categorization error that breaks accountability

When in-person is a marketing function, marketing owns the event and sales owns the follow-up. This division creates a handoff point. Handoff points create accountability gaps.

Marketing can claim success based on leads generated. Sales can blame marketing for lead quality. Neither team owns the full conversion process. Neither team is accountable for pipeline outcomes.

How cross-functional handoffs quietly fail

The marketing-to-sales handoff after events fails in predictable ways:

• Leads arrive days after the event when context has faded
• Data quality varies wildly with no consistent standards
• Prioritization criteria don't match sales capacity
• Follow-up timing misses the window of prospect engagement
• Conversation context doesn't transfer to sales

Each failure point reduces conversion rates. Compounded across hundreds of leads, these failures explain why event ROI disappoints.

What true end-to-end ownership would require

Real in-person GTM requires someone accountable for the full motion, from event selection through closed revenue. This person or team needs authority across traditional boundaries. They need to influence pre-event targeting, on-site engagement, data capture, follow-up execution, and attribution.

This doesn't mean eliminating specialization. It means creating coordination mechanisms that don't exist in traditional structures. It means measuring success on outcomes, not activities.

Misconception 7: You can figure out who someone was after the interaction

Most organizations treat lead enrichment as a post-event activity. Reps scan badges, upload data, and then someone appends firmographic information days later. The assumption is that you can reconstruct context after the fact.

This assumption underestimates how quickly context decays.

Why identity and intent decay faster than teams expect

The half-life of event context is shorter than most teams realize. Within 24 hours, reps forget conversation details. Within 48 hours, prospects move on to other priorities. Within a week, the event feels like ancient history.

Delayed enrichment means delayed follow-up. Delayed follow-up means lower conversion rates. The prospect who was excited on Tuesday is indifferent by Friday.

The cost of delayed enrichment and follow-up

Consider the math. If immediate follow-up converts at 15% and delayed follow-up converts at 5%, every day of delay costs you two-thirds of your potential pipeline. Multiply that across hundreds of event interactions and the cost becomes staggering.

The delay isn't just about speed. It's about relevance. Follow-up that references specific conversation points lands differently than generic outreach. But you can only reference what you captured, and you can only capture what you knew in the moment.

Why real-time context changes everything

Real-time enrichment transforms in-person engagement. When reps know who they're talking to before the conversation ends, they can ask better questions. They can route high-value prospects to senior team members. They can capture relevant context while it's fresh.

Platforms designed for in-person GTM provide this real-time capability. They enrich contact data instantly, surface account intelligence during conversations, and enable immediate follow-up workflows. The technology exists. The question is whether organizations will use it.

Misconception 8: In-person marketers don't need to be technical

Event marketing has traditionally been a non-technical function. Creativity, relationship skills, and operational coordination mattered more than system administration or data aarchitecture. Many event marketers built careers without touching a CRM configuration.

That era is ending.

How pushing systems ownership elsewhere fragments data

When event teams don't own their systems, they depend on other teams to build and maintain them. Marketing operations configures the CRM fields. IT manages the integrations. Revenue operations handles the reporting.

This distribution fragments accountability. When data quality suffers, everyone can point fingers. When attribution breaks, no one owns the fix. When new requirements emerge, they enter a queue behind other priorities.

Vendor dependency vs internal accountability

Many event teams outsource technology decisions to vendors. They use whatever badge scanner the event provides. They accept whatever data format the registration platform exports. They work around limitations rather than solving them.

Vendor dependency creates constraints. You can't build a consistent in-person GTM system when every event uses different tools with different data structures. You can't ensure data quality when you don't control the capture mechanism.

Why technical fluency is now table stakes

Modern in-person GTM requires technical fluency. Not deep engineering skills, but enough understanding to:

• Configure capture tools and customize data fields
• Build and maintain CRM integrations
• Design attribution models and reporting dashboards
• Troubleshoot data quality issues
• Evaluate and implement new technologies

Event marketers who lack these skills will increasingly find themselves dependent on others and unable to drive the outcomes they're accountable for.

Misconception 9: Event ROI is inherently hard to prove

Ask any event marketer about attribution and you'll hear the same refrain: events are hard to measure. Multiple touches influence deals. Long sales cycles obscure causation. The data is messy.

These challenges are real but overstated. They become excuses for not measuring at all.

Perfect attribution vs directional truth

Perfect attribution is impossible. You'll never know with certainty which touchpoint caused a deal to close. But perfect attribution isn't the goal. Directional truth is.

Directional truth means understanding which events generate pipeline and which don't. It means knowing whether in-person investment is paying off at a portfolio level. It means having enough signal to make informed decisions about future investment.

You don't need perfect data to make better decisions. You need better data than you have now.

How attribution anxiety lowers the measurement bar

The difficulty of attribution often leads organizations to lower their measurement standards. They accept vanity metrics because revenue metrics seem impossible. They report badge scans instead of pipeline because pipeline attribution is hard.

This lowered bar becomes self-reinforcing. When you don't measure revenue impact, you can't prove revenue impact. When you can't prove revenue impact, leadership questions the investment. When leadership questions the investment, you get fewer resources to build better measurement.

What meaningful in-person measurement actually looks like

Meaningful measurement requires:

• Consistent data capture across all events
• Integration with CRM and marketing automation
• Clear rules for attributing pipeline to events
• Comparison across event types and investment levels
• Longitudinal tracking of conversion rates

This isn't rocket science. It's the same measurement discipline that digital marketing applies. The difference is that in-person teams haven't historically been expected to meet this standard.

Misconception 10: Events are one-off moments, not part of an ongoing effort

Most organizations plan events as discrete projects. Each event has its own goals, its own preparation, its own follow-up. When the event ends, the project ends. The next event starts fresh.

This project mindset prevents compounding.

Dates vs motions in in-person GTM planning

A date-based approach treats each event as an isolated moment. A motion-based approach treats events as touchpoints in an ongoing relationship development process.

The difference matters. Date-based planning optimizes individual events. Motion-based planning optimizes the full in-person portfolio. Date-based thinking asks "How do we maximize this conference?" Motion-based thinking asks "How does this conference fit into our annual in-person strategy?"

Why nothing compounds when every event starts from zero

When every event starts from zero, you lose accumulated knowledge. You don't know which prospects you've engaged before. You don't know what conversations you've already had. You don't know what worked at previous events.

This reset destroys compounding. Each event generates leads that decay rather than relationships that build. Each event teaches lessons that get forgotten. Each event creates data that gets archived rather than activated.

Reframing in-person as a continuous revenue motion

Effective in-person GTM treats the full calendar as a single motion. Pre-event outreach references previous interactions. On-site conversations build on established relationships. Post-event follow-up continues threads rather than starting new ones.

This continuity requires systems that persist across events:

• A unified database of all in-person interactions
• Relationship histories that span multiple touchpoints
• Playbooks that encode lessons from previous events
• Metrics that track performance over time, not just per event

When in-person becomes continuous, each event amplifies the ones before it. That's how compounding works.

Raising the bar for modern in-person GTM

The ten misconceptions we've examined share a common thread: they all lower expectations for what in-person GTM can achieve. They justify underinvestment, excuse poor data, and accept mediocre outcomes.

Correcting these misconceptions doesn't require new tactics. It requires new thinking.

Why better events won't fix a broken mental model

You can improve your booth design, train your reps, and optimize your follow-up sequences. These improvements help at the margins. But if your mental model treats in-person as inherently unsophisticated, unmeasurable, and disconnected from revenue, tactical improvements won't transform outcomes.

The organizations that win at in-person GTM start with different assumptions. They assume in-person can be measured. They assume event teams can drive revenue. They assume data quality is achievable. They assume systems can enhance relationships.

What changes when in-person is treated as first-class GTM

When organizations treat in-person as first-class GTM, several things shift:

• Investment in systems and tooling increases
• Event teams gain strategic authority and accountability
• Data quality standards rise to match digital channels
• Attribution becomes expected, not aspirational
• Cross-functional coordination improves
• Compounding becomes possible

These shifts don't happen automatically. They require intentional decisions by leadership. They require willingness to challenge assumptions that feel like common sense.

How correcting these misconceptions unlocks compounding value

Each misconception we've examined creates drag on your in-person GTM. Correcting them removes that drag. But the real value comes from compounding.

When data quality improves, attribution becomes possible. When attribution becomes possible, investment decisions improve. When investment decisions improve, ROI increases. When ROI increases, you can invest more. Each improvement enables the next.

Organizations that correct these misconceptions don't just get better events. They build a compounding in-person revenue engine that grows more valuable over time. They turn their highest-quality interactions into their highest-quality data. They make in-person a strategic advantage rather than an expensive question mark.

The misconceptions holding in-person GTM back in 2026 aren't inevitable. They're choices. And you can choose differently.

‍