What this is
The promotion, mapped to the registration funnel
Eleven posts across five accounts drove the pre-event push — two Corvane execs, two customer speakers, one partner. We captured everyone who publicly liked or commented on them, then cross-referenced that list against the registration export — broken out by who attended, who registered but didn't show, and who declined or canceled. The goal: see which people who engaged in public actually converted, and just as usefully, which engaged but didn't.
Marcus Ellery· 4 posts
Priya Raman· 1 post
Dane Whitfield· 2 posts
Sofia Marchetti· 2 posts
Aaron Bell· 2 posts
16
Engaged & attended
the social push paid off
5
Registered, engaged, didn't attend
warm re-invite list
12
Engaged but declined / canceled
interested, timing off
The other ~383 engagers are not on the registration list. That's a sizeable warm audience that interacted with the promotion but never registered — a ready-made retargeting pool for the next event.
The matches
Everyone who appears on both the engagement data and the registration list
Grouped by what they did with their registration. Speakers, partners, and sponsors are flagged — they're the promoters, not prospects.
Attended (16)
| Name |
Engagement |
Likes |
Comments |
Posts engaged |
| Aaron BellSpeaker | Liked + Commented | 8 | 5 | Ellery #1–4, Whitfield #1–2, Marchetti #1–2, Bell #1–2 |
| Marcus EllerySpeaker | Liked + Commented | 6 | 7 | Ellery #1/#3/#4, Raman #1, Whitfield #1–2, Marchetti #1–2, Bell #1 |
| Curtis VanceSponsor | Liked + Commented | 8 | 1 | Ellery #1–4, Whitfield #1, Marchetti #1, Bell #1–2 |
| Priya RamanSpeaker | Liked + Commented | 5 | 1 | Ellery #2–4, Raman #1, Whitfield #2, Marchetti #2 |
| Sofia MarchettiSpeaker | Liked + Commented | 2 | 3 | Ellery #1, Whitfield #2, Marchetti #2, Bell #1 |
| Dane WhitfieldPartner | Liked + Commented | 2 | 2 | Ellery #4, Whitfield #1, Marchetti #1 |
| Nolan Reyes | Liked | 4 | 0 | Ellery #4, Whitfield #1–2, Marchetti #1 |
| Harriet Okonkwo | Liked + Commented | 2 | 1 | Ellery #2, Ellery #4 |
| Anjali Deshmukh | Liked | 1 | 0 | Ellery #3 |
| Theo LindqvistSponsor | Liked | 1 | 0 | Raman #1 |
| Grace Mahoney | Liked | 1 | 0 | Raman #1 |
| Owen Pratt | Liked | 1 | 0 | Raman #1 |
| Victor Salas | Liked | 1 | 0 | Raman #1 |
| Nadia Farrow | Liked | 1 | 0 | Marchetti #1 |
| Rohan Malhotra | Liked | 1 | 0 | Bell #1 |
| Daniel Kwon | Liked | 1 | 0 | Bell #2 |
Registered but didn't attend (5)
| Name |
Engagement |
Likes |
Comments |
Posts engaged |
| Trevor Lange | Liked + Commented | 7 | 3 | Ellery #1–4, Raman #1, Marchetti #1–2 |
| Beatrice Hollis | Liked | 2 | 0 | Ellery #1, Whitfield #2 |
| Claire Devaney | Liked | 1 | 0 | Ellery #2 |
| Ivy Castellanos | Liked | 1 | 0 | Ellery #4 |
| Amit Suri | Liked | 1 | 0 | Whitfield #2 |
Declined / canceled (12)
| Name |
Engagement |
Likes |
Comments |
Posts engaged |
| Kenji Morita | Liked | 2 | 0 | Ellery #1, Ellery #3 |
| Diego Ramirez | Liked + Commented | 1 | 1 | Marchetti #2, Bell #2 |
| Camila Ortega | Liked | 1 | 0 | Ellery #1 |
| Meera | Liked | 1 | 0 | Raman #1 |
| Lars Bakker | Liked | 1 | 0 | Raman #1 |
| Vikram Nadar | Liked | 1 | 0 | Whitfield #2 |
| Adriana Vega | Liked | 1 | 0 | Whitfield #2 |
| Bridget Kane | Liked | 1 | 0 | Whitfield #2 |
| Erin Voss | Liked | 1 | 0 | Whitfield #2 |
| Micah Feldman | Liked | 1 | 0 | Whitfield #2 |
| connor hayes | Liked | 1 | 0 | Marchetti #2 |
| Paula Winters | Liked | 1 | 0 | Bell #2 |
The campaigns
What we do with the data
A report nobody acts on is a PDF. Every segment below comes out of the tables above as a named list, with the angle and the channel already decided. Your team runs them, or we write the sequences and hand them over ready to send.
Campaign 01 · Warm no-shows
5 named people
Registered, promoted it publicly, never walked in.
The highest-intent miss in the whole dataset. They told their network they were going. Something got in the way — and nobody followed up.
- The play
- Session replay of the track they engaged with, plus a personal note and first-access to next year's registration.
- Where
- 1:1 email and LinkedIn DM from the host, not the marketing alias.
Campaign 02 · Engaged, never registered
~383 profiles
Publicly interested. Never converted.
They liked or commented on a post about the event and then did nothing. This is the single largest pool in the report and the cheapest audience you'll ever buy for the next one.
- The play
- Early-bird sequence built around the exact post each person engaged with, led by the clip that earned the reaction.
- Where
- LinkedIn connection requests from the speaker they engaged with, then a three-touch nurture.
Campaign 03 · Declined or canceled
12 named people
Said yes to the content. No to the date.
Interest was never the problem — travel, budget, or timing was. Treated as lost in most CRMs. They're the easiest yes on a different format.
- The play
- Regional or virtual alternative, plus a hold-the-date for next year before public registration opens.
- Where
- Two-touch email sequence, routed to the owner already on the account.
Campaign 04 · Sponsor + partner renewals
11 posts of proof
The reach numbers become the renewal conversation.
Sponsors and partners get asked to renew on a feeling. Per-post reach, named engagers, and attendance conversion turn that into a one-page case with figures on it.
- The play
- A per-sponsor reach recap pulled from the post data, delivered with the renewal ask.
- Where
- Partnerships team, in the renewal meeting.
Standout: Trevor Lange. Registered, didn't attend — yet liked 7 posts and commented 3 times. By far the most engaged no-show in the dataset. That's a personal call from the host, not a slot in an email blast.
Campaign 01 · sample message
To: Trevor Lange · from the host, not marketing
Trevor — noticed you were following the Connect build-up closely and then didn't make it in. Hope nothing went sideways.
Sofia's session was the one people wouldn't stop talking about. Sending you the recording before it goes anywhere public.
We open Connect 2027 registration in October. Want me to hold you a seat before it goes out?
Where this shows up in revenue
Three places, in order of how fast they close. Ticket and registration sales — the ~383 who engaged and never registered are a named early-bird list for the next event instead of a cold ad spend. Membership and account expansion — engagers already inside your customer base signal interest you can hand straight to the account owner. Sponsor and partner renewals — per-post reach and named attribution replace "it felt like a good year" in the renewal conversation.
The actionable list
Re-engagement targets
These people cared enough to like or comment on the promotion but did not attend — the warmest re-invite and follow-up audience for the next event. Sorted by engagement strength.
Warm follow-ups (17)
| Name |
Status |
Likes |
Comments |
Signal |
| Trevor Lange | Didn't attend | 7 | 3 | High · multiple posts + commented |
| Beatrice Hollis | Didn't attend | 2 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Kenji Morita | Declined / canceled | 2 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Diego Ramirez | Declined / canceled | 1 | 1 | Medium · liked + commented |
| Camila Ortega | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Claire Devaney | Didn't attend | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Ivy Castellanos | Didn't attend | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Amit Suri | Didn't attend | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Meera | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Lars Bakker | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Vikram Nadar | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Adriana Vega | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Bridget Kane | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Erin Voss | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Micah Feldman | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| connor hayes | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
| Paula Winters | Declined / canceled | 1 | 0 | Light · single like |
Per-post engagement
Where the engagement came from
Reaction and comment volume by post. Priya Raman's single customer post and both of Dane Whitfield's partner posts carried the heaviest reach — all three outperformed anything published from the company account.
Engagement volume by post
| Post |
Reactions |
Comments |
| Ellery #1 | 27 | 3 |
| Ellery #2 | 27 | 1 |
| Ellery #3 | 32 | 9 |
| Ellery #4 | 29 | 7 |
| Raman #1 | 96 | 2 |
| Whitfield #1 | 89 | 8 |
| Whitfield #2 | 96 | 15 |
| Marchetti #1 | 35 | 7 |
| Marchetti #2 | 39 | 10 |
| Bell #1 | 32 | 7 |
| Bell #2 | 35 | 8 |
| Total | 537 | 77 |
Estimated reach
How many people likely saw the promotion
LinkedIn only shows true impression counts to a post's owner, and never reveals who viewed without engaging. Since these posts belong to five different authors, we can't pull real impressions or name silent viewers — but we can estimate reach by working backward from engagement, using a standard LinkedIn benchmark.
The model. On LinkedIn, reactions and comments typically represent a small single-digit percentage of the people who actually saw a post. We back into impressions three ways: a low estimate assumes a high ~5% engagement rate (well-targeted audience), a mid estimate assumes ~3% (a common average), and a high estimate assumes ~1.8% (broad, less-engaged reach).
Estimated impressions per post (modeled, not actual)
| Post |
Engagement |
Est. low |
Est. mid |
Est. high |
| Ellery #1 | 30 | ~600 | ~1,000 | ~1,650 |
| Ellery #2 | 28 | ~550 | ~950 | ~1,550 |
| Ellery #3 | 41 | ~800 | ~1,350 | ~2,300 |
| Ellery #4 | 36 | ~700 | ~1,200 | ~2,000 |
| Raman #1 | 98 | ~1,950 | ~3,250 | ~5,450 |
| Whitfield #1 | 97 | ~1,950 | ~3,250 | ~5,400 |
| Whitfield #2 | 111 | ~2,200 | ~3,700 | ~6,150 |
| Marchetti #1 | 42 | ~850 | ~1,400 | ~2,350 |
| Marchetti #2 | 49 | ~1,000 | ~1,650 | ~2,700 |
| Bell #1 | 39 | ~800 | ~1,300 | ~2,150 |
| Bell #2 | 43 | ~850 | ~1,450 | ~2,400 |
| Total (gross) | 614 | ~12,300 | ~20,450 | ~34,100 |
These are gross impressions (view events), not unique people. The same followers saw several of these posts, so unique reach is meaningfully lower — realistically a few thousand distinct people, viewed many times over. Treat the mid column (~20K gross) as the working number and the low/high as the plausible band.
Can we tell who saw it without engaging?
Not by name — LinkedIn deliberately hides post viewers. But two things follow from the model. First, the silent majority is large: at a ~3% engagement rate, for every 1 person who liked or commented, roughly 30+ saw the post and did nothing visible — a pool in the low thousands we simply can't name. Second, everyone who registered almost certainly saw it: the entire registration universe heard about the event somehow, overwhelmingly through these posts or the linked event page, so it's safe to place all registrants inside the "saw it" set whether or not they reacted.
Want actuals instead of estimates? The only way to get true impressions is from each post owner's own LinkedIn analytics — they see exact counts plus anonymized viewer demographics (company, title, location), but never names. If the five authors screenshot or export their post analytics, we can swap these estimates for real numbers and tighten the whole picture.