Making the Invisible Visible: The DevRel Value Model
DevRel teams have been gutted since 2023. Not because they weren’t delivering value, but because nobody could prove they were. Macroeconomic jitters, AI disruption, and round after round of layoffs put every budget line under a microscope. As one industry voice put it, “Developer Relations experienced significant downsizing and layoffs”, driven by the sheer difficulty of proving ROI.
The irony? DevRel keeps delivering. Research shows 89% of DevRel teams struggle to prove ROI with traditional marketing metrics, precisely because developers discover products through docs, repos, blogs, and events, touchpoints that resist tidy attribution. And yet, high-performing DevRel teams demonstrably drive activation, engagement, and adoption, deliver trusted advocacy that accelerates adoption, and influence product-market fit when wired in strategically. Ecosystem research confirms DevRel strengthens retention, efficiency, innovation, and complementarity.
DevRel is vital, but also exposed. Its contributions are real, yet invisible to the people holding the purse strings. To survive in this market, DevRel has to translate community impact into business outcomes, using language leadership actually speaks. That’s where the DevRel Value Model comes in.
This post walks through how we think about the DevRel Value Model at Cloudinary: where it came from, how it was built, and where it stands today. (Some of the values, weights, and calculations have been changed for demonstration purposes and don’t reflect the actual numbers used at the organisation.)
The Visibility Problem in DevRel
DevRel has always struggled to articulate its impact. Communities thrive, events buzz, content reaches thousands, and leadership is still left asking: “How does this translate into business outcomes?”
Nobody can blame them. Sales and marketing have linear revenue attribution. DevRel doesn’t. If presented badly, all leadership sees is a pile of numbers that don’t add up to anything meaningful but definitely drain money: sponsorship, content, travel, salaries.
Not all companies are alike. In some, DevRel’s value is obvious, usually because leadership has done developer relations before or was embedded in the company’s early days. In others, DevRel is new, or has been around for a while but now faces increasing pressure to justify itself. Either way, the answer lies in data and metrics.
The Beginning: Inception of a Model
Right, let’s get to it. Why did we build a model in the first place?
It started with a single question: “Was that event worth sponsoring?” We kept getting this from management. It wasn’t always spelled out, but it boiled down to “Why are we doing so many events and where’s the ROI? How do you know if these events were successful?”
Answering that question typically relied on gut feel (which is itself a “metric”, albeit an unmeasurable one). “Yeah, this event was good because [insert reason here].” We needed something better. We had to measure success properly and answer those burning questions.
We landed on something simple: analysing costs against measurable engagement. Talk and workshop attendees, newsletter signups, quality booth conversations. That shift towards structured measurement planted the seed for the DevRel Value Model.
Building a Framework for Value
At its core, the model assigns weights to activities. A workshop attendee carries more weight than a talk attendee; an engaged conversation outweighs a passive booth visitor.
If you’ve been to events, you know exactly what I mean. You could have 200 people in a room for a talk, but most of them are there because there’s nowhere else to go. Maybe half are somewhat interested in the topic, and half of those are interested enough to try your product. (I’m a firm believer in leading with use-case and pain point first, weaving in the product as a solution, rather than leading with product.)
That smaller group of genuinely interested talk attendees? They’re likely the same people who’d attend your workshop. So a workshop attendee carries more “weight” because the engagement is far deeper. The same logic applies to other event activities: activations, booth registrations, newsletter sign-ups.
The model started with a boolean outcome: “Was the event successful for us?” Yes or No. The question is, how did we answer it?
You don’t always need to begin by bolting on monetary values. What matters first is establishing whether an event was successful in relative terms and comparing that success across multiple engagements. A weighted scoring system does exactly that.
Defining Activities
First, identify the key activities that happen at your events. These are the touchpoints signalling meaningful engagement:
- Talk attendees: individuals who attended a presentation.
- Workshop attendees: participants who joined an in-depth, hands-on session.
- Activations: people who took part in demos, technical challenges, or sign-ups at your booth.
Each signals a different degree of engagement. A talk attendee gains some awareness. A workshop attendee has committed real time and focus. Someone who completes an activation has gone further still, actively interacting with your product. (Assuming your activation involved registration and product usage.)
Assigning Relative Weights
Once activities are defined, assign weights reflecting their relative importance. Deeper engagement carries more weight. (These are sample values, not the exact ones we used at Cloudinary.)
Think of these weights as a way to quantify each activity’s value:
- Talk attendee = 1 point
- Workshop attendee = 3 points
- Activation = 5 points
This weighting acknowledges that not all attendees provide equal value. A single activation counts for more than several passive listeners in a talk.
Calculating a Weighted Score
With weights in place, multiply the participants in each category by the relevant weight and sum the totals.
An example:
- 200 talk attendees × 1 = 200
- 50 workshop attendees × 3 = 150
- 30 activations × 5 = 150
Total Score = 500 points
This figure isn’t expressed in pounds or dollars, but it provides a composite measure of the event’s impact.
Normalising Against Cost
To compare events of different scales, normalise the score against cost. Divide the weighted score by the total cost and you get a value-per-pound index (or value-per-dollar, or whatever currency you operate in).
Using the example above:
- Sponsorship cost = £5,000
- Weighted Score (from the earlier example) = 500
- Value Index = 500 ÷ 5000 = 0.1 points per £
If another event cost £10,000 but produced a weighted score of 700, the value index would be 0.07 points per £. Despite the higher attendance and overall score, the second event was less efficient in relative terms.
Establishing a Baseline Through Multiple Events
A baseline doesn’t exist from the outset; it emerges once you’ve run several events and compared their value indices. (And this can easily be built retrospectively.) Three events side by side:
| Event | Talk Attendees (×1) | Workshop Attendees (×3) | Activations (×5) | Total Score | Event Cost | Value Index (points per £) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 200 = 200 | 50 = 150 | 30 = 150 | 500 | £5,000 | 0.10 |
| B | 150 = 150 | 80 = 240 | 60 = 300 | 690 | £6,000 | 0.115 |
| C | 300 = 300 | 20 = 60 | 10 = 50 | 410 | £7,000 | 0.058 |
Calculating the Baseline
With three events measured, you can establish an initial benchmark:
- Average Value Index = (0.10 + 0.115 + 0.058) ÷ 3 ≈ 0.091 points per £
This becomes your baseline. Events above it (like Event B) were successful and efficient. Events below it (like Event C) may need rethinking or resource reallocation. As more events are added, the baseline grows stronger and more representative.
This lets you say things like: “This £5,000 event performed 25% above our baseline.” That statement carries weight in conversations with leadership, even without explicit monetary values.
Why This Approach Works
The strength of a weighted model without monetary equivalents is threefold:
- Clarity without complexity: you can measure and compare event effectiveness using a consistent framework, no finance validation required for every assumption.
- Comparative insight: it pinpoints which events are relatively more impactful, guiding future investment.
- A foundation for evolution: once comfort and trust are built around weighted scoring, monetary equivalents can be bolted on later to bring the model closer to financial language.
You don’t need to start with pounds or dollars to demonstrate DevRel’s value. A weighted model provides a transparent, scalable method of showing which events drive the most meaningful engagement, letting you demonstrate success with confidence while laying the groundwork for more advanced models.
Refining the Model to Reflect Real-World Impact
Before we get to how we expanded this model and bolted on theoretical monetary ROI, a note: this version works best if your DevRel activities sit at the Education & Enablement or Adoption stage. I think of DevRel as having a funnel: Awareness → Education & Enablement → Adoption → Retention → Advocacy (which maps to a developer’s journey: first hear about → learn → build → stay engaged → champion).
In earlier stages, when you’re making developers aware of your product and ecosystem, you may need to burn through cash without constantly checking ROI. But at later stages, when you have the developers and users, the question is rightly asked: “How does DevRel impact the business in terms of revenue?”
At Cloudinary we were in the Adoption / Engagement & Retention phase. Once the simple model proved itself, it was time to refine it further and introduce monetary ROI.
As established, the model assigns weights to activities. This weighting ensures quality of engagement is reflected alongside quantity.
The next step was to introduce monetary equivalents. Working closely with finance, we asked a simple but critical question: “What is a registration on our platform worth to the business?” Finance teams already calculate customer acquisition costs, pipeline values, and average lifetime value. By aligning with their expertise, we agreed that each registration can be valued at $10. (This isn’t the actual value; I’m using it as an example.)
Here’s the catch: at events, we don’t know exactly how many developers go on to register (and eventually use our product). Attribution is messy. Some attendees sign up weeks later, some never do, some are already users. This is precisely why the model relies on weights as proxies for registration likelihood.
Different types of engagement correlate with different levels of intent. A talk attendee has shown some interest, but the barrier to entry is low. A workshop attendee has committed real time and focus, suggesting they’re more likely to move forward. An activation is an even stronger signal, the closest proxy to an actual registration. We further extended this by adding brand awareness (a conservative percentage of total event attendees who would have seen our logo, say 15%).
Using this weight-based system, we translate different forms of engagement into registration equivalents. The goal isn’t exact attribution; it’s a reasoned proxy:
- A group of ten talk attendees ≈ 1 registration equivalent.
- A single workshop attendee ≈ 0.6 registration equivalents.
- A single activation ≈ 1 registration equivalent.
The model can and should accommodate DevRel Qualified Leads (DRQLs), instances where a concrete lead has been generated directly through developer relations (and passed on to sales). These deserve their own high-value weighting, as they’re far more closely tied to commercial outcomes than other forms of engagement.
Applying this to a hypothetical event:
- 200 talk attendees
- 50 workshop attendees
- 30 activations
Converting to registration equivalents:
- 200 talks ÷ 10 = 20 registration equivalents
- 50 workshops × 0.6 = 30 registration equivalents
- 30 activations × 1 = 30 registration equivalents
Total = 80 registration equivalents
If each registration is agreed with finance to be worth $10, this event generated a theoretical value of $800.
A few more examples with additional activities:
| Event | Talk Attendees (÷10) | Workshop Attendees (×0.6) | Activations (×1) | Newsletter Signups (×0.5) | Brand Awareness (Reach × 0.5) | Total Registration Equivalents | Theoretical Value ($10 each) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 200 ÷ 10 = 20 | 50 × 0.6 = 30 | 30 × 1 = 30 | 40 × 0.5 = 20 | - | 100 | $1,000 |
| B | 150 ÷ 10 = 15 | 80 × 0.6 = 48 | 60 × 1 = 60 | - | 15% of 1,000 × 0.5 = 75 | 198 | $1,980 |
| C | 300 ÷ 10 = 30 | 20 × 0.6 = 12 | 10 × 1 = 10 | - | - | 52 | $520 |
Don’t mistake this for direct revenue. It’s a directional ROI, a way of expressing impact in terms that resonate with leadership while acknowledging the limits of attribution. The real value lies in shifting the conversation: rather than relying on abstract community metrics like attendance or views, you can present numbers that fit naturally into business discussions. Once leaders see DevRel’s activities in this light, they’re far more likely to understand, recognise, and support the function.
Note that the model doesn’t account for other expenses such as travel, marketing (swag), or other costs associated with DevRel activities.
Expanding Beyond Events
What began as event ROI measurement soon grew broader. We applied the same principles to content creation and other DevRel activities: blog views, YouTube plays, and newsletter sign-ups could all be weighted, valued, and expressed in the same model. This gave DevRel a holistic framework for evaluating its diverse activities.
What Makes This Model Different
There’s no shortage of frameworks in the DevRel space. Many highlight community tiers, engagement levels, or ecosystem health. Useful lenses, all of them. But they tend to stop short of translating outcomes into the language most organisations ultimately care about: finance.
The DevRel Value Model fills that gap. It doesn’t dismiss qualitative insights; it complements them by bolting on a layer of financial equivalence. That bridges the gap between the often intangible work of community-building and the concrete expectations of company leadership.
For practitioners, this shift is immensely valuable. DevRel professionals constantly ask themselves: “Was this initiative worth the effort?” Until now, the answers were subjective or anecdotal, resting on gut feeling, applause in a room, or social media buzz. The Value Model strips that back and replaces intuition with a structured method. By converting activities into weighted registration equivalents, and mapping those equivalents against a finance-agreed value, it provides a consistent yardstick. Events, workshops, content campaigns, and online engagement can be compared side by side. That comparison enables practitioners to make data-informed decisions about where to invest their time, energy, and limited budgets.
You should still look at raw data such as YouTube view counts and use that to see what works and what doesn’t for your organisation. The Value Model offers a structured approach to evaluate DevRel’s impact in terms of financial equivalence; it doesn’t replace other metrics.
For leadership, the model does something more important: it produces a single, comprehensible figure that speaks their language. Executives evaluate functions based on financial metrics, whether sales pipeline, marketing-qualified leads, or customer acquisition costs. DevRel has historically struggled to enter that conversation because its outputs don’t map neatly to revenue attribution. A theoretical ROI gives leaders a familiar anchor point. They may not take the number as literal revenue, but they grasp the intent, and that understanding reshapes DevRel from a “nice-to-have” into a strategic contributor.
Worth underscoring: this model doesn’t pretend to offer exact revenue attribution. It’s theoretical by design. Its job isn’t to compete with the precision of a sales funnel, but to provide directional visibility where none previously existed. That distinction is powerful. Leadership doesn’t expect DevRel to deliver the same metrics as sales, but they do expect clarity. A theoretical ROI, even with its imperfections, reframes the conversation from ambiguity to credibility.
With tightening budgets and AI reshaping the industry, every function is being asked to justify its existence. DevRel can’t depend on community goodwill alone; it must demonstrate value in clear, structured terms. By making the invisible visible, the DevRel Value Model helps secure DevRel’s seat at the strategic table.
In practice, this means DevRel teams can finally sit at the same table as their counterparts in sales, marketing, and product. When everyone speaks the same financial language (even if DevRel’s figures are directional rather than definitive) conversations change. Budgets are defended more effectively, priorities are debated on equal footing, and DevRel’s contributions are no longer invisible. That’s what sets this model apart: it takes what has always been difficult to measure and expresses it in a form that both practitioners and executives can act upon.