On the Monday after an event, every promoter remembers a fuller night than the door does. That is not dishonesty, it is a memory gap with a financial interest attached: someone who messaged thirty people counts thirty — even when eighteen showed up and four of those come every week anyway.

Attribution settles it. But it only settles it if the rules exist before the night. Applied afterwards, every allocation is a negotiation.

The basis: one link per promoter

A shared list everyone adds to cannot tell you afterwards who brought whom. A separate sign-up link per promoter can, because the attribution happens at the moment someone signs up rather than in the conversation later.

It has an underrated side effect: promoters can see their own number live. That ends most of the argument before it starts.

The decision: sign-ups or check-ins?

This is the real question, and it is a commercial decision rather than a technical one.

Pay onUpsideRisk
Sign-ups Simple, and the promoter sees their position immediately Rewards filling the list. At 30% no-shows you pay for people who never arrived
Check-ins Pays for real guests and matches your actual takings Promoters carry no-show risk they only partly control

In practice a blend works best: a base on check-ins plus a bonus above a threshold. That rewards volume without paying for names that never turned into people.

The edge cases that cause the arguments

Three of them come up at every event. Settle them once, in writing, and never again.

What you need for it

EventSync generates the promoter links, ties every check-in back to its source and keeps guest history across events — so the number is settled when the night ends, not on Monday.

See the event CRM