We were planning our Q3 regional event: customer dinner for 40 people in Chicago. Projected cost: $55K.
Then our biggest technology partner reached out: "We're planning a dinner in Chicago the same week. Want to co-host?"
I hesitated. Co-marketing events sound great in theory—split costs, shared audience, aligned messaging. In practice, I'd seen them devolve into turf wars over lead ownership and awkward joint presentations where neither company looks good.
But our solo event was projected to generate maybe $80K-$100K in pipeline. We'd run this playbook before. The ROI was mediocre.
I said yes to the partner dinner. We split the costs ($28K each), combined our guest lists (40 + 40 = 80 attendees), and ran it as a true partnership.
Three months later, the pipeline numbers rolled in: $340K from 80 attendees. The partner event generated 3.4x more pipeline at half the cost.
The difference? When you combine complementary audiences and deliver joint value, you're not splitting the pie—you're making the pie bigger.
Here's what I learned about running co-marketing events that actually work.
Why Most Partner Events Fail
I've seen dozens of partner events fail. The pattern is always the same:
What companies think partner events are:
- Split costs to make events cheaper
- Double the audience by combining lists
- Show "ecosystem integration" to prospects
What actually happens:
- Partners fight over who owns leads
- Joint messaging becomes watered-down and confusing
- Event feels like a vendor pitch fest, not valuable content
- Follow-up is uncoordinated and awkward
The fundamental mistake: Treating partner events as cost-sharing exercises instead of value-multiplication opportunities.
When you co-host an event just to split costs, you end up with half an event. When you co-host because you can deliver something together that neither company can deliver alone, you multiply value.
The Partner Selection Framework: Who to Co-Market With
Not every partner relationship should become a co-marketing event. Most shouldn't.
Good co-marketing partners:
- Serve the same ICP but solve different problems
- Have complementary products (customers use both together)
- Share similar company values and GTM approach
- Have aligned event goals (pipeline vs. brand awareness)
- Can commit equally to promotion and execution
Bad co-marketing partners:
- Compete for budget (even if products are different)
- Serve different ICPs (you're targeting CFOs, they're targeting engineers)
- Have different event philosophies (you want tactical workshops, they want thought leadership)
- Can't commit equal resources
- Have mismatched brand positioning (enterprise vs. startup)
Our biggest mistake: We once partnered with a company targeting the same buyer persona (VP Marketing) but competing for the same budget. The event became a subtle competition. Prospects could sense the tension. Pipeline generated: $15K. Never again.
Our biggest win: We partnered with a company solving the adjacent problem. We help companies analyze customer data. They help companies act on it. Same buyer (VP Product), different budget, genuinely complementary use cases.
Event felt natural. Prospects saw clear value in using both tools together. Pipeline: $340K.
The screening questions I ask before committing:
- "Do your customers commonly use our products together?"
- "Are we targeting the exact same buyer with the same budget?"
- "Can you commit equal resources to promotion and execution?"
- "What does success look like for you?" (If they say "brand awareness" and we need pipeline, it won't work)
If answers to #1 and #3 are "yes" and #2 is "no," it's worth exploring.
The Co-Marketing Event Formats That Work
We've tested six partner event formats. Three consistently work. Three consistently fail.
Format 1: Customer Dinner with Joint Case Study (Works)
40-80 people, high-end restaurant, customer presents how they use both products together.
Why it works:
- Customer does the selling (more credible than vendors)
- Integration is demonstrated through real use case
- Intimate setting for deep conversations
- High perceived value (exclusive dinner)
Example: Chicago dinner with 80 attendees
- Customer presented: "How we reduced churn 35% using [Partner] + [Us]"
- 20-minute presentation, 90 minutes of networking over dinner
- Pipeline generated: $340K
- Cost per company: $28K
Format 2: Co-Hosted Webinar with Problem → Solution Flow (Works)
45-60 minute webinar where Partner presents the problem, we present the solution (or vice versa).
Why it works:
- Natural flow: problem definition → solution implementation
- Each company has clear role
- Demonstrates how products work together
- Easy to promote to both audiences
Example: "From Data Chaos to Insights in 60 Days"
- Partner (data infrastructure): "The problem: Your data is scattered"
- Us (analytics): "The solution: Unified analytics platform"
- Registration: 420 (210 from each list)
- Attendance: 38%
- Pipeline: $180K combined
Format 3: Regional Roadshow Split Between Cities (Works)
Partner has strong presence in East Coast, we're strong on West Coast. Co-host roadshow, each company leads in their strong region.
Why it works:
- Leverages each partner's regional strength
- Shares roadshow logistics costs
- Expands reach into new territories
- Still allows each company to own the relationship in their region
Example: 6-city roadshow
- We led LA, SF, Seattle (our territory)
- Partner led NYC, Boston, Chicago (their territory)
- Combined attendance: 340 people
- Combined pipeline: $680K
- Cost: 40% less than doing separately
What doesn't work:
Format 1: The Joint Booth at Conferences (Usually Fails)
Splitting booth space sounds cost-effective. In practice, it's confusing.
Why it fails:
- Prospects don't know who they're talking to
- Messaging gets muddled
- Each company gets half the visibility
- Lead ownership is unclear
We tried this once. Spent $25K each. Generated $30K combined pipeline. Never again.
Format 2: The "Ecosystem" Panel Discussion (Usually Fails)
Four partner companies on a panel discussing "The Future of [Category]."
Why it fails:
- Too broad, no specific value
- Feels like vendor pitch fest
- Prospects tune out
- No clear call to action
Pipeline generated: $8K from 150 attendees. Terrible ROI.
Format 3: Co-Branded Content Series (Usually Fails)
Partnering on whitepapers, eBooks, or blog series.
Why it fails:
- Takes forever to coordinate approvals
- Messaging gets watered down to satisfy both companies
- Distribution is weak (neither company fully promotes)
- Generates awareness but not pipeline
We spent 3 months on a co-branded eBook. Downloads: 240. Pipeline: $12K. Not worth the effort.
The Pre-Event Agreement That Prevents Disasters
Most partner event failures happen because expectations weren't aligned upfront.
The agreement we now require before any partner event:
1. Cost split: How much is each company contributing? (Usually 50/50, sometimes weighted by attendee contribution)
2. Lead ownership: Who owns which leads?
- Our current model: Each company owns leads they brought (tracked by registration source)
- Shared leads (walked up without source): Both companies can follow up
- This prevents turf wars
3. Promotion commitment: What is each company doing to promote?
- Our requirement: Each partner commits to 3 email sends + social promotion
- If one partner doesn't promote, the event fails
4. Content ownership: Who's presenting what?
- Define roles upfront
- Each company gets 40-50% of content time
- Customer gets 20-30% if applicable
- No last-minute surprises
5. Success metrics: What does success look like?
- Define this upfront
- If we need pipeline and they need brand awareness, we'll measure differently
- Agree on joint metrics (attendance, pipeline influenced)
6. Follow-up process: How do we follow up post-event?
- Timeline (both companies follow up within 24-48 hours)
- Messaging (coordinate so prospects aren't getting duplicate pitches)
- Cadence (don't bombard shared leads)
We put this in writing before committing. Saves huge headaches later.
The Promotion Strategy That Fills Partner Events
A common failure: Both partners assume the other will handle promotion.
Our promotion split:
Partner A (us) responsibilities:
- Email our database (3 sends over 3 weeks)
- Social media promotion (LinkedIn + Twitter)
- Sales outreach to target accounts (top 50 accounts get personal invites)
- Landing page setup and registration management
Partner B responsibilities:
- Email their database (3 sends over 3 weeks)
- Social media promotion
- Sales outreach to their target accounts
- Co-create content and messaging
Shared responsibilities:
- Joint promotional assets (email copy, social posts, landing page content)
- Weekly sync on registration numbers
- Identify overlapping attendees (don't double-invite)
The result: Combined reach of 15,000+ people. Registration rate 2.8% (420 registrations). Attendance rate 42%.
Compare to solo event promotion:
- Our database: 8,000 people
- Registration rate: 1.9% (152 registrations)
- Attendance rate: 35%
Partner promotion doesn't just add registrations—it improves conversion because the joint brand signal increases credibility.
The Event Execution That Avoids Awkwardness
Partner events can feel forced if the execution isn't natural.
What makes them awkward:
- Both companies trying to pitch simultaneously
- Unclear roles (who's leading?)
- Competitive tension
- Customer confused about who they're talking to
What makes them smooth:
Clear role division:
- Host: Handles logistics, welcomes attendees, moderates
- Presenter: Delivers content
- Customer: Shares story
- Closer: Summarizes and gives clear next steps
At our Chicago dinner:
- Partner hosted (their city, stronger relationship with venue)
- We moderated (our customer was presenting)
- Customer presented for 20 minutes
- Both companies participated in Q&A
- We jointly gave next steps
Everyone knew their role. No awkwardness.
Joint value delivery, not dual pitches:
Bad partner event:
- Partner A pitches for 15 minutes
- Partner B pitches for 15 minutes
- Prospects are pitched for 30 minutes
Good partner event:
- Customer or industry expert presents real problem (15 minutes)
- Partner A shows how they solve part of it (10 minutes)
- Partner B shows how they solve the other part (10 minutes)
- Combined demo: How it works together (10 minutes)
- Q&A (15 minutes)
The second version delivers value. The first version is a pitch fest.
The Follow-Up System That Maximizes Pipeline
Pre-event agreement covered lead ownership. Post-event execution determines whether that pipeline converts.
Our follow-up system:
Within 24 hours (for attendees we brought):
- Our sales team reaches out: "Great to see you at the dinner. Based on your question about [topic], want 15 minutes to walk through how [our product] handles that?"
Within 24 hours (for attendees partner brought):
- Partner's sales team reaches out with similar personalized approach
Within 48 hours (for shared/walk-up attendees):
- Coordinate who reaches out first
- Usually: Company most relevant to attendee's question reaches out
- Second company follows up 1 week later if relevant
Within 1 week (all attendees):
- Joint follow-up email from both companies:
- Recording (if applicable)
- Resources from both companies
- Offer: "Want to see how [Partner] + [Us] work together for [Use Case]? Book a joint demo."
The joint demo offer converts at 18% (vs. 8% for solo demo offers) because prospects see the integrated value.
The ROI Comparison: Solo vs. Partner Events
Solo event (Q1 Chicago customer dinner):
- Cost: $55K
- Attendees: 42
- Pipeline generated: $85K
- Cost per attendee: $1,310
- ROI: 1.5x
Partner event (Q3 Chicago customer dinner):
- Cost: $28K (our share of $56K total)
- Attendees: 78
- Pipeline generated: $340K (our attributed pipeline)
- Cost per attendee: $359
- ROI: 12.1x
Partner event delivered:
- 64% cost reduction (for us)
- 85% more attendees
- 4x more pipeline
- 8x better ROI
The math is compelling.
When Partner Events Are The Wrong Choice
Partner events aren't always the answer.
Don't co-market when:
Your partner competes for the same budget
Even if products are complementary, if you're both asking the CFO for money from the same pot, the event becomes competitive.
You need full control of messaging
Product launch events, brand repositioning events, major announcements—these need singular control. Partner involvement dilutes messaging.
Lead ownership will be contentious
If you can't agree on clean lead ownership rules, don't do the event. The post-event fight isn't worth it.
Your GTM approaches are misaligned
If you're enterprise-focused and they're SMB-focused, the event won't satisfy either audience well.
Timing doesn't align
If your partner can't commit to promotional timeline or event execution timeline, don't compromise your event.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Partner Events
Most companies run partner events to save money. That's the wrong reason.
The right reason to run partner events: You can deliver something together that's more valuable than what either company could deliver alone.
When a prospect sees Partner A + Partner B solving adjacent problems in one integrated approach, that's more compelling than seeing each company separately.
What doesn't work:
- Co-marketing just to split costs
- Partnering with companies targeting same budget/buyer
- Joint booths at conferences (confusing and weak)
- Unclear lead ownership (causes post-event chaos)
- Assuming partner will handle promotion
- Dual pitches instead of integrated value delivery
What works:
- Partnering because you deliver better value together
- Complementary products serving same ICP with different budgets
- Customer dinners with joint case studies
- Co-hosted webinars with problem → solution flow
- Clear pre-event agreement on costs, leads, promotion, content
- Coordinated follow-up that respects lead ownership
The best partner events:
- Deliver integrated value neither company can deliver alone
- Have clear roles and lead ownership from day one
- Promote equally with combined reach of both audiences
- Cost 40-60% less than solo events
- Generate 3-5x more pipeline through expanded reach and credibility
If your partner events are generating less pipeline than solo events, you're doing it wrong.
Pick the right partner. Agree on terms upfront. Deliver joint value. Follow up fast.
The ROI will speak for itself.