A campaign announcement is not an outcome. Announcing that a programme will "feed children" or "tackle hunger" describes an intention; it doesn't prove anything happened. This guide sets out a practical measurement framework that's useful whether or not you ever work with Zenko.
The evidence chain
Every credible programme should be able to show, in order: the eligible action a supporter took; how that action was attributed to the programme; how the resulting funding was calculated and secured; who carried out fulfilment; what receipt or confirmation exists that fulfilment happened; and what was actually reported publicly, in what unit. A programme that can show the first three steps but not the last three has a marketing claim, not an evidenced outcome.
A per-transaction digital record, the kind of digital collectible described in how Shop for Good works, is a genuinely useful tool at the attribution step specifically: it creates an individually traceable link between one eligible action and the funding it triggered, which is harder to produce after the fact from aggregate sales data alone. It is one input into the evidence chain, not a substitute for the fulfilment and receipt steps that follow it, a collectible proves a purchase was linked to funding; it does not, by itself, prove the food was delivered.
Outputs, outcomes and impact are different things
An output is what the programme directly produced, a number of transactions, a quantity of food delivered. An outcome is what changed for the people receiving it, whether a family had food that week. Impact is the longer-term difference this makes, health, education, family stability over time. Most sport-for-good programmes, including purchase-linked ones, can credibly evidence outputs and, with a good delivery partner, some outcomes. Very few can credibly claim measured longer-term impact, and claiming it without a proper study design overstates what's actually known.
Minimum viable metrics
| Metric | Definition | Evidence owner | Reporting frequency | Public wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eligible supporter actions | Count of transactions or actions that qualified under the programme's published rules | Club or retailer | Ongoing/end of campaign | "X eligible purchases were made during the campaign" |
| Funded amount or unit | The specific quantity funded per eligible action, in the delivery partner's own unit | Funder | Set before launch | "Each eligible purchase funded [unit]" |
| Cost per funded outcome | The actual, confirmed per-unit cost agreed with the delivery partner for this specific campaign | Funder/delivery partner | Set before launch | "Each outcome was funded at [confirmed cost]" |
| Conversion rule and cap | The exact rule connecting actions to funded units, and any maximum | Funder/Zenko | Set before launch | "Funding was capped at [X]; [Y] was reached" |
| Fulfilment date | When the delivery partner actually distributed the outcome | Delivery partner | Per delivery | "Delivered on [date]" |
| Named delivery partner | Who sourced, prepared and distributed the outcome | Delivery partner | Once, published | "Delivered by [named organisation]" |
| Delivery geography | Specific local area(s) reached, and whether sourcing was local to that area | Delivery partner | Once, published | "Sourced and delivered within [named local area/hubs]" |
| Quantity delivered | Using the delivery partner's own honest unit (not converted to a bigger-sounding figure) | Delivery partner | End of campaign | "[X] [unit] were delivered" |
| Receiving organisations | Named schools, family centres or community hubs that received the outcome | Delivery partner | Once, published | "Distributed through [named hubs]" |
| Exceptions, refunds, failures | Transactions that didn't complete or were reversed | Club/retailer | End of campaign | Disclosed if material to the total |
| Evidence publication date | When the result was published, relative to when it was delivered | Club/Zenko | Once | "Published on [date], covering delivery through [date]" |
Privacy and safeguarding
Where children are involved, published evidence should never include identifying details of individual children or families, schools, hubs and aggregate numbers are appropriate; named or photographed children generally are not, and any imagery involving children needs proper consent processes that sit outside the scope of this article. The digital collectible issued to a purchasing supporter should similarly never carry identifying information about the specific child or family the funded outcome went to, it records the supporter's own participation, not the recipient's identity. Delivery partners working in schools and family centres should already have appropriate safeguarding policies in place; a club or sponsor should ask to see evidence of this before launch, not assume it.
Avoiding double counting and misleading meal conversions
"Meals' worth of fresh produce" and "meals delivered" are not the same claim, and treating them interchangeably is one of the most common ways these programmes overstate their own results. If a delivery partner reports in units of produce weight or value, report in that same unit rather than converting it into a round number of "meals" using an assumption the partner hasn't themselves validated. Where a programme runs across multiple retail lines or funders, check that the same funded outcome isn't being counted, and claimed, by more than one party.
A pre-launch claims register and post-campaign evidence pack
Before launch, write down every public claim the campaign intends to make, alongside the evidence that will support it and who owns confirming that evidence. That includes any headline cost-per-outcome figure, if a "hyperlocal, under £1" claim is going to be made publicly for a specific campaign, the actual confirmed figure for that campaign, from that delivery partner, should sit in the register before launch, not be assumed from a general model description. After the campaign, that register becomes the basis of the evidence pack: dates, quantities, named partners, and the exact wording that will be published. This sounds like process for its own sake; in practice, it's the difference between a result a club can defend under scrutiny and one it has to quietly walk back.
A ten-point pre-launch proof checklist
- Is the funding source disclosed clearly in the campaign's own terms?
- Is the conversion unit defined in the delivery partner's own reporting language?
- Is there a cap, and is it published?
- Has the delivery partner confirmed they can actually fulfil the volume the campaign could generate, sourcing within the stated local geography?
- Is the delivery geography specific and named?
- Has a safeguarding check been done for any programme involving schools or children?
- Is every public claim in the campaign's own marketing matched to a piece of evidence that will exist after launch, including any per-outcome cost figure?
- Has "meals," "meals' worth," or any other conversion term been checked against what the delivery partner actually measures?
- Is there a plan for what happens if the cap is reached, or if fewer transactions occur than hoped?
- Has someone outside the marketing team reviewed the public wording against the evidence chain above?
An example: weak PR wording rewritten as an evidence-safe result statement
Weak: "Every shirt sold this season is feeding a hungry child in our city, for less than a pound."
Evidence-safe: "Between [date] and [date], [X] eligible home shirt purchases funded 2,000 meals' worth of fresh fruit and vegetables, sourced locally and delivered by Surplus to Purpose through four Milton Keynes hubs: Fairfield's Primary School, Priory Rise School, Abbey's Primary School and Hedgerows Family Centre."
The second version is longer and less punchy. It's also defensible if a journalist, councillor or supporter asks exactly what happened, and it doesn't attach a cost figure to a specific result unless that figure has actually been confirmed for that campaign.
What blockchain, and a digital collectible, do and don't prove here
A ledger, blockchain-based or otherwise, can record that a transaction occurred and that a funding rule was applied consistently. A digital collectible, similarly, can record that a specific supporter's specific purchase was linked to a specific funded outcome. Neither, by itself, proves that food physically reached a family, that proof comes from the delivery partner's own fulfilment records and reporting. Any claim that an on-chain record or a collectible alone verifies real-world delivery overstates what the technology does; they're strong at the attribution step of the evidence chain, not a replacement for the fulfilment and receipt steps.
Where Zenko fits
Zenko's role is joining the action, the digital collectible, and the funding record, and supporting the reporting process described above. The delivery evidence itself, the part that actually proves food reached families, comes from the named real-world delivery partner, not from Zenko.
FAQs
What's the difference between an output and an outcome? An output is what the programme directly produced, like a quantity of food delivered. An outcome is what changed for the people receiving it. Most programmes can evidence outputs reliably; outcomes need a good delivery partner and honest reporting; long-term impact needs a proper study most programmes don't have.
Is "meals' worth of produce" the same as "meals delivered"? No. The first describes a quantity or value of food; the second implies individual meals were prepared and eaten. Use whichever unit your delivery partner actually reports in, and don't convert between them.
Can a digital collectible or blockchain record prove that food reached a family? No. Both can record that a transaction happened and that a funding rule was applied consistently. Proof that food was physically delivered comes from the delivery partner's own fulfilment evidence, not from the collectible or the ledger itself.
Should a published campaign result include a cost-per-meal figure? Only if that specific figure has been confirmed for that specific campaign with the delivery partner involved. A general "typically under £1" description of how the model works is different from a claimed cost figure attached to one campaign's published result, and the two shouldn't be conflated.
What should we do if a campaign doesn't hit its target? Report honestly what was funded and delivered, using the actual figures, rather than adjusting the public claim to sound more successful than the evidence supports. A credible partial result holds up better under scrutiny than an inflated full one.
Sources used
- General measurement principles in this article draw on standard evidence-chain practice for outcome-based programmes rather than a single external source; the MK Dons example figures are as reported in how Shop for Good works.
Next step: see this framework applied in how Shop for Good works, or read the precedents this framework draws on in football's best food-poverty programmes.