The measurement challenge starts to get trickier once people are in the door. If you can’t measure whether the people you care about are coming, you can’t tell if you are moving towards greater relevance to them. This may require collecting demographic or psychographic data about attendees beyond the fact of their presence. It doesn’t matter if a thousand people enter if none of them are from the community to which you are trying to relate. If you care about being relevant to a particular community, then you have to track whether they are walking in the door. If someone shows up, they clearly made it through the door. The easiest way to measure the effectiveness of your doors is by tracking attendance. Here’s the good news: it is completely achievable to measure relevance at the door. If an institution is relevant inside the room, that means that people access meaning and value through the experiences the institution offers. If an institution is relevant at the door, that means people see the door and choose to walk in. Doron’s story raises a common question about relevance: how do you measure it? If the heart of relevance is people unlocking meaning for themselves, how do you identify the moment when the key slides into the lock successfully? How do you measure something so personal and idiosyncratic? This question is especially complicated when you consider the dazzling variety of keys, doors, and rooms in action.Īnswering this measurement question starts with separating relevance at the door and relevance in the room.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |