8-9-10-11, I'm just gonna keep on counting...
In 2006, the Visitor Studies Association conference theme was “Counting Visitors or Making Visitors Count.” To this day, it's a conference title I still remember. And it's not even one I helped plan!
It's a provocative statement.
Because, of course, we all care about "making visitors count." But there are many reasons why it is also critical to count visitors (or participants or students or whoever you work with). And that is never as easy as it sounds.
This comes up when trying to operationalize a strategic plan. Or frame an annual report. Or make a case for support.
Counting visitors or making visitors count? Trick question. It has to be both.
Being able to tell the story of how many, in a way that mirrors the story of what and why, gives you a complete story of impact.
Admittedly, it's not a simple solution. The key is to start by defining what is meaningful to your strategy. That can point toward how you might measure, count, and report that detail.
Let's try a few lenses to meaningfully count people and engagement.
Lens 1: Counting Your Reach
This is the knee-jerk reaction when we hear "counting visitors." And it is usually interpreted as the broadest measurement: headcount.
Counting Attendance. Tickets sold. Registrants. Bodies in the space. Clicks. Downloads. Likes. Whatever your mode of engagement. Everything counts as 1. Add it up.
This has merits. It's one clear number. And it's typically a Big Number. For example, it's the basis for the oft-cited statistic that more people visit museums than go to pro sporting events.
But, as sometimes happens with Big Numbers, it can feel a little meaningless. Because you've lumped all the jelly beans into a giant jar, it's like, "Cool, that's a lot of jelly beans. And?"
It will also start to fall apart if someone asks about the difference between visitation and unique visitors. Which leads to another way of thinking about reach.
Counting People. Individual human beings. Some of whom are regulars. Some who benefit just once.
Your Big Number may be more compelling when you can underline that it represents distinct, individual humans. This is actual reach. (This is why web metrics offer stats on "unique visitors," rather than just clicks.)
Also, your regulars offer a different way of counting. They may only be 1 human, but think about how frequently they come. That's a whole other count. With a little data behind it, it's not an anecdotal family that comes every week -- it's a Big Number of families for whom you are a part of their routine.
This can humanize the Big Numbers, each of which tell a slightly different story of reach.
Admittedly, any effort to count individuals is hard and not always achievable. But if this story feels compelling, it can be worth exploring options.
2: Counting Breadth
Here we acknowledge that not all engagements are created equal. Sometimes you need counting that celebrates strategic variety.
In this lens, you identify qualitatively distinct categories of how you engage audiences. And that becomes the basis for counting. The trick is finding categories that tell your story, because those are the puzzle pieces to create your final picture.
Maybe its different formats of engagement -- to showcase ways that learning is activated.
Maybe its types of audiences -- to showcase broad value across communities.
Maybe its platforms or venues -- to showcase reaching people where they are.
Maybe its via subject -- to showcase the value of interdisciplinary spaces.
A system of categorizing gives you the narrative thread for your counting story. By breaking down your Big Number into meaningful (and distinct) clusters of how you achieve your strategy, counting acknowledges the parts and the whole.
3: Counting Depth
Tell me if this sounds familiar: “Neat idea. But it costs $X,000 per participant. How do we justify that?”
When a strategy requires time investment to build relationships or learning, headcount is self-defeating. It's got a factory-style assumption about learning. (It's kind of the least publishable unit of program design.)
Alongside a solid outcome evaluation plan (I had to mention that!), you can think about participation depth. Are you building deep relationships, laying critical groundwork, empowering people? I'm telling you, there is evidence in the ways that participation is happening.
When they're in this boat, we've helped clients think about a ladder, hierarchy, or pyramid of engagement. (Shape is solely dictated by which geometric metaphor feels most apt.)
This reflects that deep engagement takes time. And that time has value. For the highest rungs, you can reframe how high degree of commitment manifests. This is where specifics diverge for every project. But it gives you ways to recharacterize counting that gets at the heart of what each "high investment" participant is putting in and why that's essential to get to bigger gains.
There's no right answer! But if you've been feeling like your efforts to "count visitors" is less than fulfilling, maybe it's time to try a different lens.
Real World Example:
We've worked with the Teen Science Cafe Network for years. As a national network of 80+ organizations leading independent Teen Science Cafe, the question of counting comes up.
Alongside outcomes, we gather information about participation in different ways. And all of these lenses come into play.
Headcount: This is a great starting point for member sites. Tracking how many teens are at each event. And it is important! Because that Big Number represents all the hours teens spent engaging with a scientist.
Repeat Attendance / Unique Teens: We encourage Adult Leaders to have some system to monitor repeat teens and new teens. It gives an estimate to report unique teens reached and the benefit of talking about repeaters. Because we know that teens coming back repeatedly has value.
Teen Leaders: As a "for teens, by teens" program, Teen Leaders are a critical component nurtured by organizations. This can be a distinct category for participation, alongside the events story.
Professional Network Engagement: As the Network has rebuilt (post-COVID), we've been working on ways to track and report engagement by TSCN organizations and Adult Leaders. It requires thinking about strategy and depth. What is meaningful (and reasonable) levels of engagement for professionals? And what makes sense over the journey in this work?
Which lens seems most meaningful for your organization to think more about? Reach? Breadth? Depth? Something else? Reply and let me know!