Key Performance Indicators for Organizational Roasting
Measuring the Immeasurable
Chapter 5
Learning Objectives
Upon completing this chapter, practitioners will be able to:
- Distinguish between vanity, engagement, resonance, and penetration metrics
- Implement the Sludge Scorecard framework for balanced performance measurement
- Define and calculate Forward-to-Friend Rate (FFR) and "I Feel Seen" Index (IFSI)
- Accept fundamental uncertainty regarding outcomes while maintaining operational discipline
5.1 Introduction
Modern organizations are measurement cultures. What gets measured gets managed. What gets managed gets resourced. What gets resourced gets done.
This logic, applied recursively across decades, has produced a world in which every function must justify itself through quantification. Marketing has conversion rates. Sales has pipeline velocity. HR has engagement scores. Even R&D — that last refuge of unmeasured intuition — has been colonized by innovation metrics and patent counts.
Satirical content operations exist uneasily within this paradigm. The outputs are measurable (pageviews, shares, time on page), but the outcomes resist quantification. Did the piece change anything? Did it shift perception? Did it make the organization marginally less dysfunctional, or did it merely provide catharsis for the already-disillusioned?
This chapter examines the challenge of performance measurement in satirical operations, proposes a framework of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) appropriate to the domain, and ultimately confronts the uncomfortable possibility that the most important impacts may be unmeasurable by design.
5.2 The Measurement Trap
Before establishing KPIs, we must acknowledge the risks of measurement itself.
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." — Charles Goodhart
If satirical operations optimize for measurable outcomes — pageviews, shares, engagement — they will inevitably drift toward content that maximizes these metrics at the expense of content that fulfills the deeper mission. Outrage performs. Nuance doesn't. A measurement-driven satirical operation will, over time, become indistinguishable from the clickbait it once mocked.
The metrics that are easy to capture are not the metrics that matter. The metrics that matter — changed minds, shifted perspectives, organizations made marginally less stupid — are difficult or impossible to capture. The Ernest Sludge Framework does not include a "predicted engagement" criterion. This omission is deliberate.
5.3 A Taxonomy of Satirical Metrics
Despite these cautions, some measurement is necessary. The following taxonomy distinguishes between metric types based on their relationship to satirical mission:
5.3.1 Vanity Metrics — Metrics that feel good but signify little.
| Metric | Why It's Vanity |
|---|---|
| Total pageviews | Includes accidental clicks, bot traffic, bounces |
| Social media followers | Follower count ≠ engagement ≠ impact |
| Time since last viral post | Virality is stochastic, not controllable |
| Number of pieces published | Volume ≠ quality |
5.3.2 Engagement Metrics — Metrics that indicate audience interaction.
| Metric | What It Suggests |
|---|---|
| Time on page | Reader actually read (or left tab open) |
| Scroll depth | Reader reached the ending (or searched for something) |
| Comments | Reader felt compelled to respond |
| Shares | Reader felt compelled to spread |
| Return visits | Reader came back for more |
5.3.3 Resonance Metrics — Metrics that indicate the content struck a nerve.
| Metric | What It Suggests |
|---|---|
| Forward rate | Reader sent to specific person: "you need to see this" |
| Quote extraction | Reader pulled specific passage to share |
| "I feel seen" comments | Reader recognized their own experience |
| Unsolicited testimonials | Reader reached out to express impact |
| Hate mail | Reader felt attacked (may indicate target accuracy) |
5.3.4 Penetration Metrics — Metrics that indicate the content entered broader discourse.
| Metric | What It Suggests |
|---|---|
| Language adoption | Readers use terms/frames from the piece |
| Citation in other works | Other creators reference the content |
| Internal corporate circulation | Piece forwarded within target organizations |
| "My company is exactly like this" | Recognition across organizational boundaries |
| HR complaints | Someone felt sufficiently threatened to escalate |
5.4 The Sludge Scorecard
Based on the foregoing taxonomy, we propose a balanced scorecard for satirical operations. This scorecard acknowledges the limitations of measurement while providing a practical framework for evaluation.
Figure 5.1: The Sludge Scorecard
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE SLUDGE SCORECARD │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ REACH (Vanity - Track but Don't Optimize) │
│ ├── Pageviews........................... [ ] │
│ ├── Unique visitors..................... [ ] │
│ └── Social impressions.................. [ ] │
│ │
│ ENGAGEMENT (Proxies - Monitor Trends) │
│ ├── Avg. time on page................... [ ] │
│ ├── Scroll completion rate.............. [ ] │
│ └── Return visitor rate................. [ ] │
│ │
│ RESONANCE (Signal - Prioritize These) │
│ ├── Forward-to-friend rate.............. [ ] │
│ ├── "I feel seen" index................. [ ] │
│ ├── Quote extraction rate............... [ ] │
│ └── Unsolicited testimonial count....... [ ] │
│ │
│ PENETRATION (Impact - Celebrate Loudly) │
│ ├── Language adoption incidents......... [ ] │
│ ├── External citations.................. [ ] │
│ ├── Confirmed internal circulation...... [ ] │
│ └── HR/Legal contact rate............... [ ] │
│ │
│ QUALITY (Non-Negotiable - Pass/Fail) │
│ └── Ernest approval..................... [ ] │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Note that Quality is pass/fail rather than graded. A piece either meets the Ernest Sludge Framework criteria or it doesn't. There is no partial credit for almost being good enough.
5.5 Detailed KPI Specifications
5.5.1 The Forward-to-Friend Rate (FFR)
The percentage of readers who share via private channel (email, DM, text) to a specific recipient. Public sharing is performative; private forwarding means the sharer believes the recipient needs to see this. A high FFR indicates recognition achieved.
5.5.2 The "I Feel Seen" Index (IFSI)
A composite measure of reader recognition in the content.
| Response Type | Points |
|---|---|
| Comment: "This is so true" | 1 |
| Comment: "I feel personally attacked" | 2 |
| Comment: "Did you work at my company?" | 3 |
| Direct message sharing personal story | 4 |
| Reader reports forwarding to coworkers | 5 |
| Reader reports reading aloud in meeting | 7 |
| Reader reports printing and posting in break room | 10 |
Benchmark: IFSI > 20 indicates strong resonance. IFSI > 50 indicates exceptional resonance.
5.5.3 The HR/Legal Contact Rate (HLCR)
Instances in which the satirical operation receives communication from HR, legal, or corporate comms. A paradoxical metric: it indicates both risk and impact. A cease-and-desist letter is, in a sense, a five-star review.
| Contact Type | Points | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
| Informal inquiry from colleague | 1 | Low |
| Forwarded "FYI" from internal comms | 2 | Low |
| Direct message from HR expressing "concern" | 5 | Medium |
| Formal meeting request from management | 7 | Medium |
| Legal department inquiry | 10 | High |
| External cease-and-desist | 15 | High |
| Subpoena | 25 | Existential |
Benchmark: HLCR > 10 indicates significant penetration. HLCR > 20 indicates the practitioner should consult with an employment attorney.
5.5.4 Language Adoption Incidents (LAI)
Instances in which terminology from satirical content appears in external discourse without attribution. When readers begin using "Plinko" as a verb for compliance processes, cultural penetration is achieved. Any confirmed LAI is cause for celebration. The expected value for most pieces is zero.
5.6 The Unmeasurable Remainder
Even with a comprehensive scorecard, the most important satirical impacts remain unmeasurable. The silent shift: a reader sees their organization differently, pushes back marginally more on absurd requests, and never comments or shares — they simply know something they didn't know before. The long game: content operates on timescales that defy quarterly measurement, achieving primary impact years later. The counterfactual: the practitioner who found catharsis instead of quitting, the meeting that encountered resistance because someone had language for what was wrong.
These are real impacts. They are unmeasurable by definition.
5.7 The Catharsis Question
A persistent critique: does satire change dysfunctional systems, or merely provide catharsis for those trapped within them? Under this critique, satire is a release valve that enables the systems it mocks.
The critique contains truth but overstates. It assumes action was otherwise forthcoming — but the individual reader lacks power to change organizational dysfunction regardless of frustration level. Catharsis supplements helplessness; it doesn't displace action. More importantly, the critique undervalues recognition. The first step in addressing a problem is naming it. "The memo is a prayer" gives readers language they didn't have before. Language enables thought. Thought precedes action.
Does satire change anything? The honest answer: we don't know. People feel seen. People forward pieces with "this is literally us." Something is happening. Whether it constitutes meaningful change or merely sophisticated coping is unknowable.
The work continues regardless.
5.8 Case Study: The Piece That Flopped (And Succeeded)
The following case illustrates the limits of quantitative measurement.
A practitioner published a piece examining the phenomenon of "reply-all storms" — the organizational chaos that ensues when an errant email triggers an escalating cascade of reply-all responses. The piece was technically competent, satisfied the Ernest Sludge Framework, and was deployed with confidence.
Quantitative performance:
| Metric | Value | Benchmark | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pageviews | 847 | 2,500 | Poor |
| Time on page | 2:14 | 3:30 | Below average |
| Shares | 12 | 45 | Poor |
| Comments | 3 | 15 | Poor |
By all quantitative measures, the piece flopped.
Six months later:
The practitioner received an email from an IT director at a mid-sized financial services firm. The email explained that the piece had been circulated internally following a catastrophic reply-all storm that temporarily disabled the company's email servers. The piece had been referenced in a subsequent postmortem meeting. A new email policy had been implemented, citing the piece's framework.
The piece had achieved actual organizational change — the rarest and most valuable outcome — while generating almost no measurable engagement.
Lesson: The metrics are not the mission. The metrics are, at best, partial and noisy signals of the mission. A piece that "flopped" by quantitative standards may succeed in ways that no dashboard will ever capture.
5.9 Summary
Measurement of satirical impact is necessary, difficult, and inherently incomplete.
The Sludge Scorecard provides a framework that distinguishes between vanity metrics (track but don't optimize), engagement metrics (monitor trends), resonance metrics (prioritize), and penetration metrics (celebrate). Quality assurance remains pass/fail, determined by Ernest rather than dashboards.
Significant satirical impact is unmeasurable: the silent shift in reader perception, the long game of cultural influence, the counterfactual dysfunctions that didn't happen because the content existed.
The catharsis critique — that satire provides release without change — contains truth but overstates. Satire changes the conditions under which dysfunction can be seen. Whether this constitutes meaningful change is unknowable. We continue anyway.
In Chapter 6, we will examine Managing Bottlenecks in the Outrage-to-Insight Conversion Process, addressing the operational challenge of maintaining sustainable grievance throughput without practitioner burnout.
Discussion Questions:
-
Identify a piece of content (satirical or otherwise) that flopped quantitatively but succeeded qualitatively. What forms did the qualitative success take?
-
How might Goodhart's Law manifest in a satirical operation that began optimizing for shares? What content drift would you predict?
-
Design a qualitative feedback capture mechanism that could supplement quantitative dashboards. What would you ask readers?
References:
Goodhart, C. (1984). "Problems of Monetary Management: The U.K. Experience." Monetary Theory and Practice, 91–121.
Sludge, E. (2025). "The Dashboard Is Not the Mission." Internal memo, found in Slack channel #existential-dread.
Unknown. (2024). "This Is Literally Us: A Phenomenological Analysis of the Forward-to-Friend Impulse." Unpublished manuscript, found in email attachment.
What gets measured gets managed. What matters often can't be measured. Chapter 6 awaits.