How we got to that number.

The product is in preliminary calibration. Projections on the calculator and on a Pitch Sheet are anchored to 9 public industry baselines and academic meta-analyses, and each dollar figure carries a band of plus or minus 30 percent. That band says how loosely the model is specified. It is not a statement about where a true number sits, because no study has linked a GRW score to a business outcome yet.

A speaker is scored across four pillars, derived from face, body, and voice signals on uploaded video:

• Poise. Composure under load. Brow stillness, postural stability, vocal cleanness.

• Animation. Visible energy. Expression dynamics, gesture amplitude, vocal range.

• Connection. Audience-direction signals. Gaze, engagement intensity, vocal pacing discipline.

• Conviction. Channel congruence and the absence of leakage cues (suppression, contempt, peak asymmetry).

The four blend into a composite Proof of Impact (POI) score on 0-100, on weights we chose, mapped to four bands:

• Foundation0-49
• Capable50-69
• Elite70-84
• Iconic85-100

Each pillar also carries a confidence figure: the share of input weight that had data behind it, across face track, body track, and prosody. Prosody is the pitch, pace, and loudness of a voice. A pillar below the confidence floor is dropped from the composite and flagged.

Each outcome metric runs on a weighted blend of pillars. Rows sum to 1.00.

The weights above are our reasoning, not a finding. We put Animation and Connection against the immediate outcomes, retention and on-site spend, and Conviction against the durable ones, return rate, sponsor renewal and social amplification. No study has tested any of those links. We publish the weights so you can argue with them, which is the only honest thing to do with a number nobody has validated.

POI band → outcome multiplier against a Capable-median speaker:

Each step traces to a published floor. Capable to Elite is +25%, matching the low end of vocal-variation retention research and of well-designed upsell uplift. Elite to Iconic adds another +25%, matching the source-effects expertise band in the persuasion meta-analysis literature. The Foundation penalty of 0.70 matches the 25-30% session drop-off in EventsAir KPI data.

Where the dollar figures come from. These are medians from public, mostly Western corporate event data:

• Median session retention rate: 70%
• Median additional on-site spend per attendee: $26.62
• Median YoY rebooking rate: 45%
• Median sponsor renewal probability: 55%

Supply your own event context, meaning audience size, ticket price, on-site spend per head, sponsor revenue, and prior-year return rate, and it overrides these. The calculator opens on a 1,500-attendee corporate conference at a $1,200 ticket, $180 on-site spend, and $2M in sponsor revenue.

Each dollar projection, on the calculator and on a Pitch Sheet, carries a band of plus or minus 30 percent either side. That band is not a confidence interval and we do not call it one. It is a statement of how roughly the model is specified, because no study yet links a GRW score to a business outcome. Read the projections as a way to structure the conversation about value, not as a measurement of it.

The band on the total is computed by root-sum-of-squares across the per-metric half-widths, which assumes those errors are roughly independent. If production calibration correlates them, the total band widens.

Post-event reconciliation uploads feed the calibration loop: audience retention from the event app, post-event survey scores, sponsor renewal commitments, and social mention volume. Enough of those and the bands can narrow. We are not going to publish how much, or by when, because that would be forecasting the precision of a validation programme that has not run yet.

Each coefficient on this page traces to one of these, and the underlying claims are public.

• Antonakis et al. — Charismatic Leadership Meta-Analysisacademic

  76-study, 36,031-individual meta-analysis — charisma is a measurable behavioural construct (vocal delivery, gestures, facial expression, eye contact) and predicts task performance, citizenship, and group performance.

• WiFi Talents — Speaker Industry Statistics 2024industry

  Vocal pitch variation lifts retention scores by up to 25%. Eye contact maintained 90% of the time rates a speaker 20% more persuasive. Storytelling makes information 22× more memorable than facts alone.

• AAE Speakers — 2024 Speaking Industry Benchmark Reportindustry

  67% of event planners say finding the right speaker is the most time-consuming part of their job. 49% of marketers say audience engagement is the single biggest contributor to a successful event.

• Ticket Fairy — Venue KPIs 2026industry

  Industry baseline: organisers generate ≈ $26.62 additional on-site revenue per attendee beyond the base ticket price. Larger events exceed $40 per attendee. On-site spend (F&B, merch, premium upgrades) is 15-30% of total live event revenue.

• PCMA Convene — 55% of Meeting Budgetindustry

  F&B accounts for 29% of exhibition + meeting cost. Combined F&B + AV + speaker/entertainment line items account for 55% of total meeting spend — the speaker is not a rounding error in the P&L.

• Cvent — 390 Event Statistics 2026industry

  72% of CPG event attendees post or share brand content after an event (Spiro). Receiving post-event communications increased purchase intent by 45%. Attendance retention is tracked as a key ROI metric by 59% of marketers (Splash).

• Remo — B2B Event Sponsorship ROI Guideindustry

  B2B event leads typically cost $150-300 each. Average event ROI is 25-34% across the industry, varying with attendance, sponsorship revenue, and brand awareness.

• EventsAir — 10 Event KPIsindustry

  Sponsor booth location: prime locations near registration, coffee stations, and main stages see 3× more traffic than tucked-corner locations. Sessions immediately following high-engagement programming see materially higher booth traffic in the post-session window.

• Source Effects in Communication & Persuasion (J. Acad. Marketing Sci.)academic

  Meta-analysis: speaker expertise has the largest single effect on persuasion outcomes — averaging 16% of explained variance. Trustworthiness and dynamism (perceived energy / animation) follow as the next two largest factors.