Meetings en masse or more relevant meetings?

This is a debate that I have raging in my head and strategies all-round at the moment.Is it more effective to have meeting en masse or to set up carefully planned and calculated companies, agencies and people to meet with?As I see it, Here are the pros and cons of having more meetings:ProsMore meetings mean more chance of work (really?).Meeting more people can lead to more connections.More people = More products.More meetings = more hype around your product.ConsMeetings are time-consuming.Statistically I feel like more meetings with less research and planning means less success.More meetings lead to less follow-up time and client relationship management.Time away from the office means time away from other responsibilities.And the pros and cons of have more relevant meetings:ProsMore research means a greater understanding of the company you are meeting with.Taking time to plan means providing a better pitch.Time is not wasted on fruitless meetings.You are able to manage and maintain relationships with key clients.Clients feel unique and taken care of.ConsIf meetings don't work out you are left with few options.Client contracts end. Then the process starts all over again if you've put all your eggs in a few baskets.This is not a particularly detailed list of pros and cons but the overall messages come through clearly I think.I am still struggling with the decision of committing my time to being out of the office at 5 or 6 meetings that might not prove to be valuable at all, or planning one meeting per day with an exceptionally well researched client who you think holds specific value with regards to specific projects you have planned or they have planned.It's probably a combination of both types of meetings in the end, but I hate that. I hate that I still have commit a chunk of my time to meetings that might not prove to be valuable, especially when I am leaving the office to do so. But it's part of the way things work I suppose.