EAGxAmsterdam 2025: What We Learned

Thanks Joris, and an excellent question. The honest answer is that I can't cleanly attribute the application increase to marketing. If I had to put a number on it, I'd estimate marketing contributed roughly 30–35% of the application increase — but this is genuinely uncertain, and I'd put the range at somewhere between 20% and 50%. Here's the reasoning and the data behind that.

What we did differently this year

The standard promotional activities — Forum posts, reaching out to group organisers across the region and asking them to share the event — were roughly the same as previous years. We also ran paid ads in both years, but the 2025 campaign was substantially different in quality and targeting.

In 2024, the ad campaign was set up by a very capable student who threw herself into it but had no prior experience with paid advertising. She ran campaigns on both LinkedIn and Meta. In 2025, we hired a professional agencies to run the Meta campaign on Instagram and support us with organic content on LinkedIn and Instagram.

Here's how the paid campaigns compare. In 2024, we spent ~€2,640 and generated 454,904 impressions and 4,162 clicks (CPM of €5.80, CPC of €0.63). In 2025, we spent ~€3,200 and generated 257,698 impressions and 6,442 clicks (CPM of €12.41, CPC of €0.50). CPM is cost per 1,000 impressions; CPC is cost per click.

So the 2025 campaign was more expensive per impression but cheaper per click — it reached fewer people but got more of them to engage. And the critical difference was what happened after the click: in 2024, there was no lead capture mechanism, just link clicks. In 2025, 709 leads were captured via instant forms and entered an automated email follow-up sequence.

I asked Claude to compare the 2025 campaign stats against industry benchmarks, and the results suggest the agency did a good job. Our CPC of €0.50 is well below typical Instagram rates (industry averages run $1.83–$3.35). Our CTR of 2.62% is roughly 3–10x the Instagram norm of 0.22–0.88%. And our CPL of €4.07 is a fraction of the average Facebook lead campaign CPL of ~$28. The one caveat is that instant forms with pre-filled data make conversion very easy, which flatters these numbers — the real question is always what those leads are worth further down the funnel.

On top of the paid campaign, we invested significantly more time in organic LinkedIn content with support from the agency. My personal profile generated 103k impressions over the campaign period (March–December), reaching 25,129 unique members, up 814% on the prior period. The EAN company page added another 26k impressions, with a clear ramp from ~500/month early on to 7,100 in November, dropping back to ~700/month after the event. We also distributed posters across university campuses in the Netherlands.

A caveat on the LinkedIn figures: the organic content also included campaigns for our intro course (which saw a 140% increase in completions YoY), so those numbers overstate the EAGx-specific reach. I can't easily disaggregate the two.

The mechanics of the Meta campaign 

We ran Instagram ads using Meta's instant form format. Someone scrolling their feed sees an ad, taps it, and a form pops up within the app pre-filled with their name and email — they can submit with essentially one tap. Those emails then synced to a Mailchimp automation that sent two follow-up emails linking to the application page.

The funnel looked like this: ~50,000 people reached → 6,000 clicks → 709 instant form leads → 612 entered the email automation → ~30–40 click-throughs to the application page. We generated those 709 leads at €4.07 each.

We originally wanted to run a website conversion campaign, which would have let us track the full journey from ad to application. The EA Global website (where applications happen) doesn't support a tracking pixel, so we built our own landing page — but then we messed up the pixel there as well. So we fell back to the instant forms, which gave us reliable lead data but broke the chain between ad exposure and actual applications.

What the feedback survey says

The post-event survey asked attendees how they heard about EAGxAmsterdam. Only ~2% of respondents credited Instagram ads and ~3% credited LinkedIn. On the surface, this looks like marketing had no effect.

But I'd be cautious about taking that at face value. Only 98 out of 159 respondents answered the channel question. It's plausible that attendees who came via ads — likely newer to EA and less engaged — were less likely to fill in a post-event survey, meaning they'd be systematically underrepresented.

There's also a basic attribution problem. Someone sees an Instagram ad, doesn't click, then hears about the event from a friend a week later and applies. They'd truthfully answer "through a friend" on the survey, even though the ad planted the seed. Self-reported attribution tends to undercredit awareness channels and overcredit the last touchpoint.

How I get to the estimate

Taking all of the above together: we received 906 applications in 2025 versus 570 in 2024, an increase of 336 (59%). Attendance grew from 381 to 517 (36%).

One way to get at the question is to compare against the broader trend. CEA's recent post reports that overall EAGx attendance grew 20% in 2025 (2,866 → 3,238). Amsterdam's 36% attendance growth significantly outperformed this. And there are reasons to think the baseline is even lower than 20%: that figure partly reflects expanding from fewer to 10 events globally (including new ones in Nigeria and São Paulo), so the per-event growth rate may be close to flat. There were also factors working against us: EAGxBerlin was close to us on the calendar (competing for the same regional audience), and EA Connect — CEA's largest ever virtual event — ran around the same time, potentially satisfying people's appetite for EA events without needing to apply to an in-person conference. In 2024, EAGxUtrecht was in the summer, further from other events.

So Amsterdam significantly outperformed a baseline that was probably close to flat, despite calendar headwinds. The main local factors that could explain the outperformance are: Amsterdam being more well-known than Utrecht, and our marketing investment. 

Of those 336 additional applications, how many did marketing drive? 709 people submitted an instant form after seeing an ad. But the gap between tapping a pre-filled form on Instagram and actually paying ~€120 and filling out a substantive application is wide. For a paid event with a non-trivial application process, a lead-to-application conversion rate of 5–15% seems realistic — that gives roughly 35–105 applications from Meta ads. LinkedIn and the poster campaign are harder to quantify: LinkedIn works as an awareness channel that primes people to respond when they encounter the event elsewhere, and posters are essentially untrackable. Together they probably contributed a few dozen applications at most that would show up in the data as "EA Global website" or "through a friend."

Setting those against the 336 additional applications, and accounting for the confounders above, I'd estimate marketing explains somewhere in the range of 20–50% of the growth, with 30–35% as my central estimate. The range is wide mostly because the lead-to-application conversion rate is doing all the heavy lifting and I have no data to pin it down. I hold this loosely.

What would actually help us figure this out

The biggest gap is that we can't connect our leads to actual applications. Fixing the tracking pixel or matching our 709 lead emails against the applicant list would give us a hard floor on ad-driven applications. It'd be great if the EA Global team could find a solution for this.

The other thing that would help is knowing whether Amsterdam outperformed or tracked with the broader trend. @Arthur Malone🔸  / @Kiryl Shantyka / @Niki Kesseler — would you be able to share application trends across EAGx conferences over the past couple of years? The overall EAGx attendance figure includes new events, so a per-event comparison would give a cleaner baseline. If Amsterdam's growth was in line with returning events, that points to ecosystem-level factors. If it significantly outperformed, that helps isolate the local effect.

Thank you, Nick! Means a lot to get a forum compliment from a power user like yourself :)

Thanks Vasco! 

I think it isn’t used much by EA event organisers because it probably doesn’t really measure precisely what it claims to measure. However, I do think it’s nonetheless a reasonable measure of overall quality, and because it’s widely used outside the EA bubble, you can more easily use it to benchmark (compared to likelihood to recommend scores).

Yup, that's a risk! I think you can mitigate it by learning how to do marketing well, but that's easier said than done!