Playbook replay
EMV and cost-per-engagement tracker
Every metric defined so two people cannot compute it differently, the EMV rate stated out loud, and one creator worked as a check.
Run for Lumira, a demo brand we invented for this page. No customer data. Nothing here runs against a live account.
Every session here was run once and saved, against a demo brand or public data. On your own account Naise works from your brand voice, your campaigns and your connected channels, so it reasons about your data instead of a stand-in.
EMV is the bigger problem. It is not a standard, it is a multiplier someone chose, and reports that do not state the rate are comparing numbers that were never comparable.
Defining every column before calculating anything. Engagement rate has at least four definitions in common use, and a campaign where two people used two of them produces a report nobody trusts.
Column definitions
| Column | Formula | The trap |
|---|---|---|
| Engagement rate | (likes + comments + shares + saves) ÷ views | Not ÷ followers. Both are called ER. |
| Cost per engagement | fee ÷ total engagements | Excludes clicks. Clicks are not engagement. |
| Cost per click | fee ÷ link clicks | |
| Cost per 1k views | (fee ÷ views) × 1000 | Comparable to paid media, unlike the rest |
| EMV | engagements × rate per engagement | The rate is a choice, see below |
The EMV rate
I am using $0.18 per engagement. That figure is a mid-range assumption for consumer beauty on short-form video, not a measured value, and I am stating it here because an EMV column with no rate attached is the reason two agencies can report different numbers for the same campaign and both be honest.
If your last campaign used a different rate, use that one instead. Consistency across your own reports matters more than which rate is correct.
@mei.routine, worked
| Metric | Working | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Engagements | 4,100 + 260 | 4,360 |
| Engagement rate | 4,360 ÷ 84,000 | 5.19% |
| Cost per engagement | $2,100 ÷ 4,360 | $0.48 |
| Cost per click | $2,100 ÷ 1,180 | $1.78 |
| Cost per 1k views | ($2,100 ÷ 84,000) × 1000 | $25.00 |
| EMV | 4,360 × $0.18 | $785 |
Note the last two lines sitting next to each other. EMV says the post was worth $785. You paid $2,100. On EMV alone this creator lost you $1,315, and EMV is exactly the metric people reach for when they want a campaign to look good. It does not always cooperate.
The $25 CPM is the more useful number, because you can compare it directly to what you pay for paid social.
The two most misread metrics in this list:
- Engagement rate. Over views it measures the content. Over followers it measures the creator. Reports mix them constantly, and a 5.19% over views can be an 0.8% over followers on the same post.
- EMV. It is not revenue and it is not a valuation. It is engagements multiplied by a number someone picked. Useful for comparing creators inside one campaign, meaningless as a standalone claim.
Shares and saves are missing. You gave likes and comments only, so the engagement rate above is understated. On TikTok saves are often 20 to 40% of total engagement, so the real figure is likely higher. Pull those before this goes in a report.
Naise created an artifact
Column definitions, a stated EMV rate, and the first creator worked through as a check.
@mei.routine
| Metric | Result |
|---|---|
| Engagement rate | 5.19% (over views) |
| Cost per engagement | $0.48 |
| Cost per click | $1.78 |
| Cost per 1k views | $25.00 |
| EMV at $0.18 | $785 |
Read that last row against the $2,100 fee. EMV does not always flatter a campaign, which is why the rate has to be stated.
Understated: shares and saves not supplied. On TikTok saves can be 20 to 40% of engagement.
That was a sample. Run it on your own brand.
Naise reads your brand, your channels, and your market, then does this against your real data.
Run this playbook free