Rules of Engagement: Quantifying the Intangible

Printed in Campus Activities Programming Magazine, Fall 2019

What makes a program successful?  Clearly, it depends on the nature (and objective) of the program - but many of us have been faced with the difficult challenge of quantifying engagement as a key step towards measuring our Return on Investment (ROI).  When everyone has an opinion, and programming budgets can be scarce, we need to figure out how to consistently and objectively evaluate events - without stripping away the subjective magic that might just be the most critical driver of success.

One direct approach to boosting ROI is to target the “I”; if you can spend less and get the same result, that’s a win.  For this reason, some institutions extend a black-and-white bid process into the realm of programs. The motivation makes sense - everyone wants the best price - but these processes assume two things: The product or service in question is identical to (or interchangeable with) the alternatives (in other words, they’ll deliver the same return), and/or the cheapest option is the best. Unfortunately this process doesn’t always have the desired effect when applied to creative services -- many of us have spent $50k+ for musical performances, but we definitely don’t want the $200 alternative.

We need a better way to measure the Return -- one that factors in both objective analysis AND emotional impact.

Before we grab a ruler and start measuring stuff, let’s divide the program up into three phases, to make sure that we’re looking for value in all the right places:

1. The Ramp Up:

A huge amount of value happens before the day of the show.  What’s the buzz like on campus?  What is the stress level of the student leaders?  Are we confident that we’ll attract students?

2.  The Show:

Even within the show itself, let’s examine sub-phases:  The arrival experience; the entrance to the event; engagement with the performance or presentation; the exit.  Did the program grab and retain students’ attention at each of these checkpoints?

3.  The Aftermath

How students feel after the program is arguably the most important question of all, since this is what will ultimately fuel both the short and long-term opinions they have about the program or tradition.  

This “extended engagement” is also a little bit easier to measure, thanks to social media.  How many posts did you see with the event hashtag? What was their tone? How many people viewed or used your Snapchat Filter? How many people tagged you? Was there an official recap post or aftermovie?  Did students want to share it (indicating that they are proud to have been there)? Did those shares get social traction?

Engagement Arcs

Based on these phases, let’s look at a few hypothetical events, to get a sense of how different types of phase performance can make us feel about the success of the program.

1.Perfection

It’s the perfect show.  The preparation is an absolute delight, and everyone feels great from day one. The announcement is well-received by students across campus.  On the day of the show, they arrive early and are HYPE to be there. Event logistics are smooth and flawless. Students support every aspect of the program, which is so engaging that it creates a glorious shared reality, bringing everyone together in seamless euphoria. The exit is smooth, the load-out is quick and easy, and students can’t WAIT to talk about how epic their experience was. You leave feeling like you can’t wait to get started on next year’s project.

2.  Great Expectations

The planning was “ok”. The idea was well received, and generated solid interest around campus. When the day arrived, students trickled in, but never really achieved critical mass or focused energy.  Most were buried in their phones, looking for engagement elsewhere. The crowd thinned quickly, and at the end of the day, you were glad it was over, and happy to move on.

3.  Wait. WHAT?!!

Let’s be honest:  It was an uphill battle.  You tried to shake things up, but had a hard time getting the campus buy-in.  Ultimately, you worked your butts off, and when this event got going, it absolutely CRUSHED expectations. 

Engagement arcs can be a great way to drive useful conversation as you debrief your events.

“The Blue Brick of Engagement”

To actually quantify engagement, let’s use an analogy that’s easier to measure:  The “blue brick of engagement” is here to help. To measure the mass (engagement) of the brick, we measure each of the three dimensions:

• Length = Degree of (peak) social impact
• Width = Duration (of social impact / engagement)
• Height = Number of people affected

Relative ROI

The brick helps us compare programs, and they come in all shapes and sizes:  Our tallest bricks focus on the entire campus community; our widest bricks are the programs that prospective students hear about on campus tours.

Return on Investment = Engagement / Cost

As we consider the ROI for programs, we should consider the following questions:

• What is the brick shaped like for each project?  How heavy / substantial was it?
• How much did it cost?
• Was it worth it?  Could we have gotten the same overall substance with fewer, larger bricks, or more smaller bricks?

Using this approach, you’ll find that some programs were “a massive brick at a really great price!”  ...or (sadly), “a really, really expensive, really thin, flimsy shard of clay.”

Values-Based Pricing

Now that we’ve got a way to measure (or at least visualize) the relative value of engagement, and, consequently, a way to evaluate the ROI for events, let’s take it a step further:  What makes an event viable?  To answer this, let’s zoom in on three key metrics:

1. Perceived Value // What do students think this experience is worth?
2. Ticket Price (or Cost per Capita, for non-ticketed events) // How much does it cost (per person) to attend?
3. Break-Even Point // How much (per person) would it take to cover all expenses or hit the financial target for the event? (Taking into account that the goal of your individual institutions may not necessarily be to break-even, but this number should account for any financial obligation you might have.)

Simply put, the rule is this:  If a > b > c, the event is viable.

If, however, c>b or b>a, the program needs to be re-evaluated..

So What Can We Do?

Having concrete shapes (pun intended), formulae, and rules, can help us see engagement challenges with new degrees of clarity and forewarning. We can identify specific questions like:

“How do we strengthen the aftermath phase of this program?”  “What further actions can we take to further extend engagement?” or “How can we boost the students’ perceived value of the program for the future?”

These factors are all interconnected, but by focusing on them separately, we can be more intentional in how we create engagement, how we measure it, and how we deliver value for our students and teams.

About the Authors

Bobby Dutton created GrooveBoston in 2004, built on the statement "Music is No Longer a Spectator Sport."  His team (now called GBM6) has since produced 10 US Concert Tours, and now delivers some of the biggest major concert traditions on college campuses, with some of the biggest artists in the world.  Bobby's pioneering work on "The New Concert Model" has won him awards internationally, and he was voted one of the "Top 25 Young Event Pros to Watch" by Special Events Magazine. His team is all about making people happy, through legendary events.  (more info at www.gbm6.com) 

Jess Claar got her start in events and campus programming as an undergraduate student and spent 12 years advising programming boards and producing student events. Following her roots back to live entertainment, she now works as a Major Events Operations Manager for Degy Booking International. Her passion is creating experiences to make people happy. 

Together, Claar and Dutton have produced award-winning concerts, and presented sessions on quantifying engagement at both national and regional NACA conferences. They also enjoy coffee.  A lot.