| Course | D647 Evaluating a Communications Strategy |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 2 |
| Paper type | KPI evaluation and recommendations |
| Length | About 1,200 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | BS Communications |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D647 Task 2
Downloads Were Easy, Deposits Were Not: A Quarter-End KPI Evaluation of a Composite Credit Union's Grow Your Goals Campaign and What to Change Next Quarter
Student Name
School of Business, Western Governors University
D647: Evaluating a Communications Strategy, Task 2
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Downloads Were Easy, Deposits Were Not: A Quarter-End KPI Evaluation of a Composite Credit Union's Grow Your Goals Campaign and What to Change Next Quarter
Purpose of the Evaluation
Gateway Community Credit Union ran its Grow Your Goals campaign for one quarter to persuade members aged 18 to 29 to use the savings goals feature in its mobile app. Before launch, the team set four outcome KPIs with baselines and targets: members in the age group with an active savings goal, the share of new goals funded within 30 days, new members aged 18 to 29, and the share of younger members who agree that Gateway helps them save. This paper reports what happened against each KPI, interprets the results, states what the data cannot show, and recommends changes for the next quarter, including changes to the KPIs themselves.
The evaluation follows the principle that results should be judged against goals set in advance, and that outcomes and organizational effects matter more than counts of activity (International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication [AMEC], 2020). Output figures such as video views appear here only where they help explain an outcome.
Results Against the Four KPIs
Table 1 summarizes the quarter. Two KPIs met or passed their targets, one fell short, and one moved in the right direction without reaching its target.
| KPI | Baseline | Target | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Younger members (18-29) holding an active goal | 700 | 1,400 | 1,520 | Target met |
| New goals funded within 30 days | 52% | 65% | 47% | Below baseline |
| New members aged 18 to 29 (landing page) | 320 (all sources) | 450 total; 150 from landing page | 468 total; 131 from landing page | Total met; landing page short |
| Agree that Gateway helps me save | 41% | 50% | 46% | Improved, short of target |
Interpreting the Results
Adoption. The campaign more than doubled the number of younger members with an active goal, from 700 to 1,520. The weekly chart of new goals shows two clear spikes, each in the week after an email to existing members, and a steady but small flow from social video. Email produced 58% of new goals, in-app messages 24%, social video 11% and branch posters 7%. Members who already had a Gateway account and received a direct message were the easiest to move.
Funding. This is the most important finding. Only 47% of new goals received a deposit within 30 days, below both the target and the 52% baseline. The drop is concentrated among goals created by members who arrived through social video, where only 29% of goals were funded, compared with 55% of goals created after an email. In other words, the campaign attracted a group of members who were curious enough to tap a button but not ready to move money. More goals created by less committed members lowered the average.
Acquisition. Total new members in the age group reached 468, above the target of 450. The landing page, however, produced 131 of those accounts, short of the 150 goal. Account opening data show that 38% of landing page visitors who began an application abandoned it at the identity verification step, which asks for a photo of a government ID on a phone.
Perception. Agreement that Gateway helps members save rose from 41% to 46% among 312 respondents in the age group. The survey sample is small, so a five-point rise is encouraging but should not be treated as precise.
What the Data Cannot Show
The adoption and perception gains happened during the campaign, but that does not prove the campaign caused all of them. The fall semester began mid-quarter, which always brings in younger members. To separate the campaign's effect, the plan held back a random comparison group of 1,000 younger members who received no campaign emails. In that group, 6% set up a goal during the quarter, compared with 13% of members who received the emails. Randomized comparisons like this are the most reliable way to estimate the effect of a message, because the two groups differ only in whether they received it (Kohavi et al., 2020). The comparison supports the conclusion that email caused a real increase in adoption, though it says nothing about social video, which could not be withheld from anyone.
Channel attribution is also imperfect. A member who watched a video, ignored it, and later opened an email counts toward email. Researchers describing the customer journey note that people move across many touchpoints before acting, so crediting the last one understates the others (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). The social video figures should therefore be read as a lower bound.
Recommendations
First, shift budget from social video to email and in-app messages for members who already bank with Gateway. Email produced the most goals and the most funded goals, and the comparison group shows its effect is real. About 40% of the social video budget can move without losing the reach the campaign needs for acquisition.
Second, add a first-deposit step. When a member creates a goal, the app should suggest a small first transfer of $10 or $25, with one tap to confirm. A reminder message at day seven for unfunded goals would follow. This addresses the funding gap directly instead of hoping it closes.
Third, keep social video but change its job. Video should aim at awareness among people who are not yet members, measured by landing page visits and completed applications, rather than at goal creation inside the app.
Fourth, fix the identity verification step. The communications team should share the abandonment finding with the digital banking team and test clearer on-screen instructions and a save-and-return option. Communication cannot fix a form, but it can surface the evidence.
Revising the KPIs
Evaluation should improve the measures as well as the campaign. Macnamara (2015) argues that evaluation stalls when it treats counting activity as the goal; the next step is to measure outcomes that matter to the organization. For the next quarter, the adoption KPI will be replaced with funded goals, counted only when money arrives in a new goal inside its first month, because a goal that is never funded does not change a member's financial habits or Gateway's relationship with them. The landing page KPI will be split into visits, applications started and applications completed, so the team can see where people drop out. The perception KPI will stay, with the sample size reported beside it. The comparison group will continue, since it is the only way to show cause rather than coincidence.
Conclusion
Grow Your Goals succeeded at getting younger members to try the savings feature and at bringing in new members, but it did not yet get them to save. The evaluation shows why: easy actions were easy to promote, while the action that matters, moving money, needed more support. Next quarter's plan funds the channels that work, adds a first-deposit step, gives video an awareness role, and measures funded goals instead of goals created.
References
International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. (2020). Barcelona principles 3.0. https://amecorg.com/resources/barcelona-principles-3-0/
Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy online controlled experiments: A practical guide to A/B testing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108653985
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69-96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420
Macnamara, J. (2015). Breaking the measurement and evaluation deadlock: A new approach and model. Journal of Communication Management, 19(4), 371-387. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2014-0020
What the D647 Task 2 instructions ask
The second D647 task asks you to evaluate a strategy after it has run, using the KPIs you planned or a data set supplied with the task. Your instructions usually require results for each KPI compared with its target, an interpretation of charts or tables, a discussion of limitations, and recommendations for improving the strategy. Some versions also ask you to recommend changes to the measurement plan itself. The key word is evaluate. A list of numbers or a copied chart is description, and the evaluator is looking for judgment: what the figures mean, why they turned out that way and what the organization should do next. Evidence has to carry each recommendation, so a suggestion that no result supports weakens the paper rather than strengthening it.
How this D647 Task 2 example is built
The paper restates the purpose and the four KPIs in one short section so the evaluation can be read on its own. A results table shows baseline, target, result and a status label for each KPI. Interpretation comes next, one paragraph per KPI, with channel breakdowns that explain the numbers, such as email producing 58% of new goals. A limits section follows before any advice, covering the semester start, last-touch attribution and the small survey sample, and it uses the holdout group to support one causal claim. Four recommendations each respond to a specific finding, from moving budget to fixing an abandoned identity check. A separate section revises the KPIs, replacing goals created with goals funded, and the conclusion states the main lesson in two sentences.
Where the D647 Task 2 rubric puts the marks
The D647 Task 2 rubric aspects reward analysis over reporting, and each is scored competent, approaching competence or not evident. An aspect on results checks that every KPI is reported against its target with accurate figures. Interpretation aspects ask whether you explain what the results mean for the organization and identify likely causes. A limitations aspect looks for honest discussion of what the data cannot show, such as attribution gaps or small samples. Recommendation aspects require each suggestion to follow from a specific result and to be practical for the organization. Where the task asks for measurement changes, the evaluator wants a reason for each change, not a new list of metrics. Charts or tables must be labeled and discussed in the text, and APA standards apply throughout.
D647 Task 2 help: what sends it back
Evaluations come back most often because the charts talk and the writer does not. If you include a table or graph, the paragraph after it should say what it means and why it matters. Another common problem is celebrating the KPIs that were met and skipping the one that failed; the missed target is usually where the most useful analysis lives. Watch causal language as well. Results that rose during a campaign did not necessarily rise because of it, so either show a comparison or say plainly that the link is uncertain. Recommendations should be few and specific: four changes tied to findings read far better than ten general ideas. Finally, remember to improve the measures themselves, since the course treats evaluation as a cycle rather than a report card.
Get a D647 Task 2 example written to your instructions
Send the task instructions and rubric aspects from your D647 course of study. We write a custom KPI evaluation and recommendations to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
More D647 papers
Other Business (BS) sample papers
- D175 Task 1 Consumer Persona Analysis
- D361 Task 1 Business Performance Report
- D353 Task 2 Training Plan
- D354 Task 2 Recruitment Plan with Metrics
D647 Task 2 questions, answered
What should I do if a KPI missed its target in D647 Task 2?
Report it plainly, then analyze it. A missed target is often the most useful finding, and this sample spends the most space on the funding rate that fell below baseline because that result drives the main recommendation.
How do I show cause in a D647 evaluation?
The strongest method is a comparison group that did not receive the campaign. Without one, describe results as associated with the campaign and discuss other explanations, such as seasonal patterns, so your claims match the evidence.
Do D647 Task 2 recommendations need sources?
Recommendations should rest mainly on your own results, but a source helps when you explain a method or principle. This sample cites research on controlled experiments and the customer journey to support its reading of the data.
Can I change my KPIs in D647 Task 2?
Yes, when the evaluation shows a measure was not useful. Explain why the old KPI fell short and how the new one ties more closely to the organization's goal, as this sample does with funded savings goals.
Where can I find a free D647 Task 2 sample paper?
The complete evaluation, results table included, is published on this page with annotations. For your own campaign data, share the D647 task instructions and the desk writes a first tailored sample free of charge.