A scanned QR proves that someone opened a digital door. It does not prove they played, that they understood the proposition or that they changed their mind about a brand. Useful measurement begins before the code is printed: it defines which action matters, which signal records it and which conclusion can be defended once the event is over.
The right question is not how much data we can collect. It is which decision each piece of data will change and what we will not be able to conclude from it.
Each figure answers a different question
Attendees describe presence. Scans describe openings. Completed games describe a finished action. A purchase records a transaction. None of these figures, on its own, establishes brand recall or commercial causation. The report should bring them together only where a defined, comparable measurement relationship exists.
Forrester places audience acquisition, making the most of data and demonstrating impact among the top priorities for event teams in 2026. The pressure to show results can lead people to confuse activity indicators with the project's effects. The answer is to define the objective and the denominator before producing anything.
A completion rate, for example, needs to know how many people started. A participation percentage against capacity needs a reliable capacity figure, and a reminder that not everyone had the same chance to get in. Without a denominator, the percentage impresses more than it informs.
Designing measurable events means designing observable actions
If we want to know what the audience chose, there has to be a clear choice. If we care about comparing entries from different points, each access needs identification. If we want to know how long a game lasts, we have to define when it begins and when it ends. Tools record system events; interpretation requires that each system event correspond to a specific human behaviour.
That is why it is worth writing a measurement dictionary alongside the script: the name of the action, the moment, the capture method, the unit of analysis and possible duplication. The same phone can scan several times; an attendee can play on two devices; an anonymous session is not always one unique person.
Physical production matters too. Two QR codes placed at different heights or with different visibility do not compare "interest" cleanly. Before attributing a difference to the creative idea, you have to review signage, the flow of people and the time available.
From objective to a defensible conclusion
- ObjectiveWhat we want to change
- ActionWhat the audience will do
- SignalWhat the system will record
- DecisionWhat we will do differently
GDN framework · Conceptual reading, no quantitative data
Privacy is part of data quality
Not every experience needs to identify the person. You can analyse aggregate usage to decide whether a mechanic worked. If you want follow-up communications or a persistent profile, you have to define the purpose, the information given to the user and an appropriate basis for the processing. The European Data Protection Board's guidelines on consent are a reminder that it must meet specific conditions when used as a legal basis.
Asking for an email before playing can reduce participation and mix two different objectives: evaluating the experience and gathering contacts. It is worth keeping them separate in the interface and in the report. A person who takes part has not, by doing so, agreed to any future communication.
PwC observes that sponsors are demanding better evidence of how the audience engages with their activations. The quality of that evidence depends on data being defined, collected and explained precisely, not on accumulating personal fields.
What a metric can and cannot prove
| Metric | What it does let you say | What it cannot say on its own |
|---|---|---|
| Scans | These entry points were opened | These people took part |
| Completions | These sessions finished the game | The brand generated preference |
| Repetition | There was return under the method used | A consolidated community exists |
| Stated recall | Responses from a sample | That the whole audience thinks the same |
Three questions for auditing a figure
What is the real unit: person, device, session or action?
Against which denominator, and at what point, is it compared?
What alternative conclusion could explain the same data?
A report that helps decide the next edition
A useful dashboard shows the full chain: opportunities to see the call, entries, starts, completions and later actions where they exist. It adds context: the moment, the location, the version of the mechanic and any incident. That way you can pinpoint whether the problem was the call to take part, the access or the game.
Brand effects require additional research, such as surveys designed to measure recall or perception. Commercial results call for comparing costs and sales carefully, and not attributing every later purchase to the event. A good report makes the limits of its conclusions explicit.
Our view at GDN
At GDN we design the measurement together with the experience. Production defines when the opportunity occurs; technology records the action; content and strategy interpret what it means. We want to deliver results that help decide the next edition, with numbers that say exactly what they measure and limits stated plainly.
Frequently asked questions
Does one scan equal one person?
Not necessarily. A person can scan several times and several entry points can lead to the same content. You have to define how sessions or users are counted.
Which metric proves participation?
A recorded voluntary action and its completion, with known counting rules. Opening a link only proves access.
Can activations be measured without asking for an email?
Yes. Many operational decisions rely on aggregate data or anonymous sessions. Identifying someone requires a specific purpose.
How do you prove the ROI of an event?
First you define what return you are looking for. You relate costs to the relevant results; attributing changes in brand or sales requires additional methods.