Independent, fan-first venue intelligence
Methodology · No sample findings
Repeated planning questions can identify a communication issue worth investigating. They do not, by themselves, prove confusion, dissatisfaction, or a commercial outcome.
The premise
Before an event, a fan may need to solve a chain of practical questions: where to park, which entrance to use, what to bring, whether a route is accessible, and where to find the correct pickup point afterward.
When the same topics repeatedly attract qualified attention, a venue team may have a communication question worth examining. Raw traffic alone says little about who visited, why they arrived, or whether their behavior supports a decision.
Which planning questions consistently attract qualified attention, which official resources do people choose next, and what should the responsible team investigate?
Start with the decision
01
Which team will act on the evidence?
02
What communication or operational choice is under review?
03
Which audience and reporting period are in scope?
04
What evidence would be strong enough to change the current approach?
05
What conclusion remains unsupported even if the signal is large?
Keep meanings separate
01
Visits to bag-policy pages, parking maps, accessibility resources, entrance information, or transportation guides show which official resources people use. They do not show whether the visitor found an answer clear or whether the topic affected attendance.
02
Repeated searches for a gate, accessible route, concession, restroom, or pickup zone can reveal what visitors actively seek. Retain the category and context instead of collapsing each action into generic engagement.
03
Email delivery, opens, and link selections can show whether a message reached people and which resources they chose. A click may reflect usefulness, urgency, curiosity, or uncertainty; it is not a direct measure of comprehension.
04
Calls, chats, and emails can contain the clearest statement of a guest question, but they represent only people who chose to contact the venue. Categorize topics with restricted access and suitable retention controls.
05
Qualified pageviews, meaningful section engagement, and categorized official-resource selections can show where planning attention concentrates outside owned channels. This selected audience complements a venue’s evidence; it does not replace it.
Qualify before counting
Topic engagement per 100 qualified eligible pageviews = distinct qualified parent pageviews with the topic signal ÷ qualified parent pageviews eligible to render that signal × 100
Report email delivery, opens, click-through rate, official-resource selections, customer-service questions, external-guide engagement, ticket outcomes, satisfaction, attendance, spending, and revenue as separate measures. Do not add them into one score.
Minimum viable measurement scorecard
Name the team and role responsible for acting on the result.
State the specific choice under review before examining the data.
Keep parking, entry, bag rules, accessibility, transit, and pickup distinct.
Define the audience, event set, venue set, and any exclusions.
Count qualified parent pageviews that were eligible to render the topic signal.
Count distinct qualified parent pageviews with the defined topic signal.
Use a complete period and record the timezone used at its boundaries.
Tie the result to the guide, message, map, or application version people saw.
Show exclusions, contamination checks, and any sample-size suppression.
Describe only the measured behavior within the qualified sample.
Name unsupported satisfaction, causality, representation, and commercial claims.
Choose one limited change the decision owner can test without overcommitting.
Define the operational, behavioral, or qualitative evidence needed to evaluate the change.
Do not act or publish when quality, scope, or decision ownership is unresolved.
Interpretation boundary
Right-size the scope
If one venue lacks a sufficient qualified sample, use a supported venue category or network-wide view. Show denominators, suppress unstable percentages, and record why the broader scope was chosen. A smaller defensible conclusion is more useful than a precise-looking comparison built on sparse behavior.
Turn patterns into questions
Before sharing a result
FanProof’s current status
FanProof is developing private venue-intelligence research from aggregated, privacy-limited behavior on public venue-planning guides. Planned reports are designed to help teams examine where planning questions concentrate, which official resources measured visitors choose next, and where the evidence remains too limited for a venue-level conclusion.
A future private-pilot discussion depends on the audited sample, fit, scope, and timing. An inquiry is an expression of interest, not a purchase or promise of availability.
Context sources
These industry examples inform the evidence categories. They do not establish FanProof demand or prove an outcome.