Comparing regional attendance fairly across local teams
Seremban filled 40 of 60 seats, Kuala Lumpur filled 90 of 120, and someone in the review meeting has already named a weaker team.
The short answer
Compare stops on the same funnel (invited, registered, attended) and the same definitions, then set the figures beside what differed: invitation list size, date, day of week, venue access and competing events. Ask the local team for their explanation before drawing a conclusion.
Use the comparison to decide what to change in the next round, not to rank teams.
Why raw attendance misleads
A stop with a smaller invitation list will have smaller attendance whatever the team does. A stop on a day when members have another obligation will fall short for reasons outside the team's control.
Compare rates at each funnel step as well as totals, and keep the definition of each step identical across stops.
The funnel to compare
| Step | Definition to fix in advance | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
| Invited | Number of people the invitation actually reached, from a named list | Reach of the invitation, often owned by central team |
| Registered | Completed registrations, duplicates removed | Interest, timing of the campaign, ease of registering |
| Attended | Checked in on the day | Reminders, venue access, day and time, competing events |
Context to record for every stop
- Size and quality of the invitation list, and who built it.
- Date, day of week and start time.
- Venue access for the audience: public transport, car park, security entry. Describe what the team reports, without assuming figures.
- Other events or obligations known to affect the audience that week.
- Who sent reminders and when.
Running the review conversation
- Share the table with local teams before the meeting.
- Ask each team what they believe explains their figures.
- Separate what the central team controls (invitation list, campaign, content) from what the local team controls.
- Agree two or three changes to test at the next round.
Worked example · Fictional example
Why Seremban looked weak
Fictional organisation and figures, for illustration only.
A fictional association, Persatuan Fiktif Perunding Pengurusan, held briefings in Kuala Lumpur, Shah Alam and Seremban. Attendance was 90 of 120 registered, 66 of 80 and 40 of 60, illustrative figures.
Seremban looked lowest in numbers but its attendance of registered was 67 percent, close to Kuala Lumpur at 75 percent. Its invitation list was also the shortest and was built centrally late. The review recorded the list issue as a central action and asked the Seremban host what they needed for reminders.
Use this yourself
Regional attendance comparison worksheet
Copy this per stop and fill every row from the same source definitions.
| Item | Stop A | Stop B | Stop C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invitation list size and who built it | |||
| Registered (duplicates removed) | |||
| Attended (checked in) | |||
| Attended as share of registered | |||
| Date, day, start time | |||
| Venue access notes reported by host | |||
| Competing events known | |||
| Host's own explanation | |||
| Action and owner (central or local) |
Open the tool: KL-Selangor-Seremban briefing circuit planner
Handle it in-house, or bring in help?
Your team can usually handle this when
- Few stops and one person has all the figures.
- Definitions are already agreed and used by all teams.
- The review is for learning, not performance rating.
Outside planning help earns its fee when
- Local teams report in different formats and the numbers cannot be compared.
- Findings are about to feed into staffing or budget decisions about local teams.
- The central team wants an independent view of what was within each team's control.
Want an even-handed comparison across your stops?
Recurring programme management can fix the definitions with you before the next round, collect each stop in one format, and prepare a review that separates central from local causes. Send a recent set of stop figures. A conference project lead can take on the same review if recurring support is not available.
Questions organisers ask
Which number matters most?
No single number. Compare attended as a share of registered, then look at registered against the invitation list, each beside its context.
Should local teams have attendance targets?
Only if the invitation list and campaign are within their control. Otherwise set targets for what they do control, such as reminders and on-site check-in.
How do we handle walk-ins?
Count them separately and decide in advance whether they are included in attended.
Related resources
Content record: Draft. Written from the cited sources and checked by automated rules; not yet independently reviewed.