Success Indicators (BAM CWTS Gr.2)

OMS IS CUTIEEEEEE ^ _ ^
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION (BAM)
TABLE 1. Major Success Indicators
TARGET RESULT (after the project)
200 likes 241 likes
100 followers 245 followers
150 reach 2,322 reach
150 page views 626 page views
According to Table 1, the anticipated objective for major success indicators was far
exceeded. The intended audience of 150 is the first thing that stands out. It can be
observed that the project's initiator attracted 2,322 people. That indicates that the team did
an excellent job of targeting their aim.
Secondly, the proposal obtained 626 views on its Facebook page. This
demonstrates that, despite the anticipated 150 views for the FB page, the population was
interested in the issue because advocacy is relevant for all people, particularly youths,
who needed to be enlightened about this matter.
Thirdly, the followers. As stated in the project pitching, the people behind the
project planned to reach 100 followers. However, because of the group’s determination
and the vitality of the issue, they were able to collect 245 followers, which is notable
enough to say that people want to be cognizant of the matter our agricultural sector is
dealing with.
Lastly, target likes. It is safe to say that the people behind this project's efforts paid
off in reaching the public by having 241 likes where they only proposed to have 200 likes
on the said page. It suggests that the group members keenly reach out to the public
audience on social media to achieve their goals in their earliest successions.
To conclude, table 1 implies that the project is well-established courtesy to the

group members who partake in achieving their target. It is apparent that looking at the
results after the project, the major successors were smoothly and successfully
incentivized the people who participated in our advocacy and those who didn’t participate
but were highly educated on the matter.
TABLE 2. Minor Success Indicators
TARGET RESULT (after the project)
5 top fans 0 top fans
15 reactions 3- 24 reactions per post
3-5 comments 0- 1 comment per post
10 share 0- 18 share per post
Table 2 signifies that although the desired target is attained on some posts, it is
apparent that the desired target is incongruous. The team initially proposed to have 15
reactions per post. However, despite their anticipation, the reactions ranged from 3–24,
meaning that some posts exceeded our planned target while other posts from the FB
page did not unfortunately outstand.
Secondly, the project's pioneers hope to have 10 shares per post. It is transparent
that shares range from 0 to 18 per post. This implies that the team's post received no
shares, which is unfortunate. Although the team received 0 shares for their post, it is worth
noting that the other post outperformed our efforts, as evidenced by the indicators, where
the highest share that we received was 18 shares for the other post. The range indicates
that, while the audience is interested in the topic, there are some posts that notably
resonate with them, spurring them to share the essence of our advocacy.
Thirdly, it is humbling to reveal that our optimum comments were not achieved. It
demonstrates that, while the public is concerned about the issue, they are slow to respond
to the post that we dispersed. The most comments were one per post, implying that very
few people are keen to share their thoughts on a post.
Finally, target the most ardent supporters. It is incontrovertible that none of the
audience members who took part received a "top fans" badge, inferring that, while they
were enthusiastic about the post, they only wanted to be briefed about it once it was
posted online and did not want to see other posts entirely irrelevant to the principle of our
agricultural realm in our state.
To extrapolate, table 2 demonstrates that the objective on the minor success

indicator was not consistent. It is clear that we have met our target mark in particular
areas but did not fully achieve what we anticipated.

Comparative Analysis
Tables 1 and 2 do not complement each other. The major indicators outperformed
our expectations and piqued the public's interest in the project, whereas the minor
indicators revealed that our preferred targets are inconsistent with each other.
To conclude the two success indicators, the team successfully informed the media
about the importance of our agricultural sector, particularly among youth, despite the fact
that the aims for the minor indicators were incompatible. Awareness is essential to
everybody, and the team definitely exemplified this characteristic to make people aware
that we should give importance to our country’s farmers and agriculture.

Success Indicators (BAM CWTS Gr.2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Success Indicators (BAM CWTS Gr.2)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Success Indicators (BAM CWTS Gr.2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OMS IS CUTIEEEEEE ^ _ ^

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION (BAM)

TABLE 1. Major Success Indicators

TARGET RESULT (after the project)

200 likes 241 likes

100 followers 245 followers

150 reach 2,322 reach

150 page views 626 page views

To conclude, table 1 implies that the project is well-established courtesy to the

TARGET RESULT (after the project)

5 top fans 0 top fans

15 reactions 3- 24 reactions per post

3-5 comments 0- 1 comment per post

10 share 0- 18 share per post

To extrapolate, table 2 demonstrates that the objective on the minor success

You might also like