Post-Event NPS of 31 and a Pipeline Attribution Dispute
A 5,000-attendee digital event generated 3,400 unique live attendees and 1,200 on-demand views, with 18,000 session views and average watch time of 34 minutes. NPS is 31 against a 42 benchmark. 620 attendees requested a demo. CRM shows $2.4 million in pipeline created within 60 days, but sales argues only $900,000 is attributable because most contacts already had open opportunities. The sponsor report claims 1.2 million impressions and 22,000 engagements. One sponsor is withholding a $150,000 payment, citing unverifiable ROI. The event cost $780,000. Leadership wants a single dashboard for next year. Five data sources disagree: the platform defines engagement as any click; marketing automation requires two minutes of watch time; registration, CRM, and survey each use different account IDs.
1. Build a measurement framework with a metric hierarchy and agreed definitions.
Read the worked answer
Start with a hierarchy: business outcomes (pipeline, closed-won, retention), then behavioral outcomes (demo requests, meetings, pathway completion), then engagement quality (qualified watch time, live participation), then reach (registrations, impressions). Define each metric once in a data dictionary. Use registration ID as the person key and a normalized domain-based account ID as the account key. Rename the platform's any-click engagement as interaction and never report it as an outcome. Adopt the marketing automation two-minute threshold as the standard for content engaged because it is defensible. Report live and on-demand separately; blending them inflates attendance. Segment NPS by persona and session path, because a single score of 31 may hide a satisfied clinical audience and a dissatisfied technical one.
2. How would you reconcile the pipeline dispute and what would you report to the withholding sponsor?
Read the worked answer
The $2.4 million versus $900,000 gap is mostly a definition problem. Split pipeline into created (no opportunity existed before the event), accelerated (existing opportunity with stage movement or a close-date change within 90 days), and influenced (contact engaged but no measurable change). Present all three with rules. Created pipeline of $900,000 plus a credible accelerated number is a stronger story than a blended $2.4 million. Tell the sponsor: 3,400 unique live attendees, 22,000 interactions redefined as session views plus content downloads, and 620 demo requests. Offer a reconciliation session and a revised report with definitions. Do not defend 1.2 million impressions as ROI; it damages credibility.
3. What governance and data architecture would you establish before next year's event?
Read the worked answer
Build a lightweight event data model: one registration system of record, UTM and campaign ID standards, CRM campaign member statuses mapped to the metric hierarchy, and a weekly data-quality check. Assign an owner for definitions and a change log so metrics cannot be quietly redefined. Contract the platform for raw event-level exports, not just dashboards, and test the CRM sync before the event. Automate a single dashboard with three tabs: audience, engagement quality, and business outcomes. Pre-register the measurement plan before the event so definitions cannot be reverse-engineered to look good after the fact.