I should be grateful that specialist energy firms use conferences, trade shows, and networking events as their main way to generate new contracts.

As if they worked, I wouldn't have a business.

What conferences do well is create familiarity, credibility, and repeated exposure.

My customer acquisition process replicates those signals, without the cost, the waiting, or the reliance on a calendar slot.

We do it through an always-on market presence, primarily on LinkedIn and supported by other channels where your buyers already pay attention.

Instead of waiting 6 months to get to the initial sales conversation, and over a year to close a deal.

We get to that initial conversation in 4-6 weeks and close the deal within a few months. 

My process is cheaper than these events, it’s quicker, it’s more efficient, and you see better ROI. 

So why do you still use these events?

You’ve always done it. 

For specialist energy service firms, this has been the industry standard for 30+ years. 

That’s longer than I’ve been alive. 

But just because you’ve always done something, and it was the best way a few decades ago, doesn’t mean it’s still the best way today. 

I went to a conference on behalf of a client, and I couldn’t believe they paid 5-figures annually on these events. 

I understand if you use these events as a tax write-off and a bit of fun. But for a way to generate business? Leave it in the past. 

Especially considering I’d generated that client more revenue within 5 months than these events had in 3 years.

You don’t want to come across “salesy.”

I fully understand it. When you hear the word "outreach" or any form of marketing that's not awareness-focused, you think of:

• The annoying sales rep refusing to take no for an answer

• Those 6 paragraphs cold pitches in your email and LinkedIn inbox

• Automated outreach messages that are irrelevant to you

And you don't want your company to come across like this.

The priority of my approach is your reputation; our marketing is shaped by what’s really happening. Most firms still use conferences to win business face the same issues:

It takes 6 months' worth of meetings to speak about business

Usually, that involves 5-10 good interactions (touchpoints) and conversations to get someone to like/trust you enough to speak about business. 

Assuming things go well, that takes roughly 6 months of real-life interactions. 

But on LinkedIn?

It’s 4-6 weeks with the right approach. 

• A few casual chats in DMs 

• Some good, consistent content that shows up on their feed 

• Well-timed retargeting campaigns based on data

Essentially, these replace the touchpoints from the conferences.

It just takes a month or so, instead of the 6 months it would take going the conference route.

It’s math:

You’re able to nurture a higher volume of leads at once, so you have more opportunities. 

You get to the first sales-focused conversation quicker, so the final sale is sooner.

The posts build trust at a faster, more efficient rate than conferences, so the sales cycle is shorter. 

Again, it’s math! 

You could think this is too good to be true, but truth be told, it’s a modern approach for an out-of-date process. 

It’s not that this process is revolutionary; it's that trade shows and conferences are a legacy approach that no longer matches how buyers behave

A lot of other industries have already adopted this approach, but I’m one of the few doing it in these niche spaces. (I enjoy the people more!)

Think about it. 

The majority of people in these industries have LinkedIn, and will open the app most days. 

You’re likely the same. 

But very few post anything other than generic updates, and even fewer use it proactively to generate new business.

It doesn't matter if your ideal client is smaller companies with between 20 and 50 employees, or huge companies with thousands of employees; LinkedIn is undoubtedly the most efficient option for energy service firms.

I’m always asked for my specific process as to how I got a firm fully booked for 9 months, or how I got past clients’ meetings with Scottish Power, MBDA, and other big companies, and I understand why:

1. I milk it in my own marketing.

Can you blame me? They get attention. 

2. They’re “sexy” names that have name recognition.

Before I show you my approach, I would like to note that I generated these meetings for clients who had extremely specific target audiences. I’m talking sub 200 companies. If your targeting and messaging are generic, you won’t get in.

So what is my approach:

My “hierarchy” method.  

If a company has 500+ employees in a specific location, this is the best approach. 

I use data sourcing tools like Apollo and SalesNav to map out the hierarchy of the company, before manually researching what their “public” hierarchy is and cross-checking the data with my own eyes.

Obviously, you only include relevant departments and people who are directly impacted by your offer, or people who directly influence the decision maker. 

Then build a hierarchy in a CRM, with the 3 tiers being:

1- Executive leadership. The people who will sign off on your services.

2- Executives. The people who have a say on the solution and typically bring your solution to the table. 

3- Team leaders who directly influence the 2s. This is the stage where people are using LinkedIn a lot; these are the “first in’s” with the company.

Typically, the 3s will use LinkedIn more than the 2s and 1s. With the way the LinkedIn algorithm works, when the 3s engage with your posts, they’ll start to show up on their connections' feeds. (The 2s and the 1s.)

You can go lower than the 3s on the hierarchy depending on the company. (I’ve only felt the need to do that once.)

From the start date, it usually takes around 4 weeks to become known to the relevant people in the big companies, assuming the hierarchy is correct, the content is good, and the outreach is relevant.

With Scottish Power, it resulted in a meeting straight away; with MBDA, it took another 4 weeks on top of that to get the first meeting. Usually, it’s in between the two.

Is it a lot of effort? Yes 

Can it be boring to track the data? Yes

But is it worth the effort? Absolutely

Is it more efficient than the “conference” approach? Undoubtably. 

For the smaller companies (20-50 employees), it’s a similar approach, but instead of having a hierarchy of 50+ like the bigger ones, you have 3-5 relevant people from one company in your CRM, and you track each interaction, then tweak your approach accordingly. 

Typically, the smaller the company, the quicker the initial meeting and the sooner the deal closes, but as you know, the deal size is smaller. 

It depends on your business strategy and personal goals to decide which is better for you. 

Did you find all of that interesting? I doubt it.

I do it for a living, and I find it boring. 

But it works. 

And quite simply, you don’t care how I do it. 

You care about the new business we can generate for you. 

So if you’re ready to stop wasting thousands on conferences in 2026, we’d love to have a chat!

Book a call directly in my calendar in the footer, or drop me a message on LinkedIn.

I look forward to speaking with you soon. 

-Joe

PS. Sorry for calling these events “dinosaur stuff' I just believe there’s a better way!