How We Measured the Effectiveness of the Communication Campaign for the New KSE Campus

Successful communication campaigns are not just a set of creative ideas and activities, but the result of strategic planning, execution, and, equally important, measuring effectiveness. At Magonova & Partners, we believe: if a result cannot be measured, it cannot be effectively managed.

Today we share our experience analyzing the communication campaign for the new campus of Kyiv School of Economics — a project that sparked significant public interest and required balanced communication support.

GCS Evaluation Cycle: Six Steps to Understanding Results

For effectiveness assessment, we used the GCS Evaluation Cycle methodology, developed by the UK Government Communication Service. This system allows evaluating communications not only after the fact but also during implementation, making it possible to make adjustments in real time.

The GCS Evaluation Cycle includes analysis of six key components that form a complete picture of the communication campaign's effectiveness:

1. Inputs — Our Strategy and Invested Resources

At the campaign planning stage, we defined clear objectives:

• Explain the educational mission of the new KSE campus project

• Emphasize the openness of the space and accessibility for the community

• Neutralize potential negativity regarding the targeted use of land

• Demonstrate the campus's openness and its long-term benefit for the community

For each target audience — local residents, activists, students, faculty, business representatives, and international partners — we developed targeted messages that considered their interests and needs.

2. Outputs — What the Audience Saw

During the campaign implementation, we utilized various communication channels and content formats. The analysis showed over 500 publications with an audience reach exceeding 2.5 million people.

Key campaign messages (“campus as an educational space”, “openness to the community”, “investment in Ukraine’s future”) were reproduced in most publications.

We paid special attention to the diversity of formats: from informational messages to interviews with key stakeholders and expert columns.

3. Outtakes — Audience Perception

At this stage, we analyzed how target audiences perceived and interpreted our messages:

• 80% of publications contained direct or paraphrased mentions of the project's educational mission

• 75% of mentions (over 300 out of 397 analyzed) had positive, neutral, or neutral-positive tonality

• Few publications contained negative assessments, mostly unrelated to the essence of the project

Qualitative analysis showed the use of emotionally positive vocabulary in comments and publications: "impressive", "great endeavor", "changing the city". We also recorded a significant number of requests for additional information, indicating audience interest.

4. Outcomes — Reactions and Actions

This evaluation stage focuses on what specific actions the audience took under the influence of the communication campaign:

• Over 2,200 people attended the KSE-Obolon open picnic (analysis was conducted prior to the event)

• Media, community groups, and activists showed increased interest by proactively requesting additional information about the project

• Cases of public support of the initiative by representatives of various audiences were recorded

• Numerous creative ideas, collaboration proposals, and various forms of support for the project were received from engaged audiences

A particularly important indicator of success was the active position of local community representatives who independently spoke in support of the project.

5. Impact — Organizational Effect

At this stage, we assessed how the communication campaign affected KSE’s organizational goals:

• New public ambassadors ready to support KSE initiatives were identified

• A public framework of campus openness for various audiences and initiatives was established

• Our observations suggest that KSE's image has solidified as an institution developing solutions for Ukraine's recovery.

These results contribute to KSE’s reputational capital and support future communication initiatives.

6. Learning — Conclusions for Future Campaigns

The final stage of analysis allowed us to formulate important conclusions and recommendations:

• The presence of KSE's positive public brand as an innovative educational institution significantly helped the campaign

• Preliminary informational consultations with selected representatives of target audiences helped avoid many potential risks.

• Criticism was most often associated with personalities, not the idea or goals of the project

A systematic approach to evaluating communications is what distinguishes strategic campaigns from a simple set of activities. It allows not only understanding the effectiveness of the work performed but also continuously improving communication strategies based on real data and insights.