Virlia
← Free tools

EMV calculator

Earned media value from a view count and a stated cost per thousand, with the benchmark, its source and the arithmetic shown next to the number. It is what buying the same attention as paid media would have cost, which is not revenue and is not a return.

Put in a view count. Everything here is computed from it, and an EMV of zero and an EMV nobody could calculate are different statements.

The number with its method attached, which is the only version a finance team will accept.

Why EMV has a bad reputation

Because it is usually quoted with no basis, no window and no source, and then presented as though it were money the company made. Finance teams noticed some time ago, which is why EMV is treated as marketing fiction in most of the rooms where budget is actually decided.

None of that is a problem with the idea. Comparing earned attention against what the equivalent paid attention would have cost is a reasonable thing to want. The problem is that the number travels without the method, and once separated it cannot be checked by anybody.

So this shows the benchmark, where it came from and the period it describes, right under the figure. If you screenshot it, the method comes with it.

Why there is no engagement multiplier

The usual move is to price a like at some number of cents, a comment at rather more, then add that to the view based figure. Those weights are invented. There is no source to cite for them, and they are the single biggest reason EMV numbers come out several times larger than anything defensible.

Views map to impressions, impressions map to a cost per thousand, and that chain can be checked end to end. Nothing past it can.

The consequence is that this calculator will give you a smaller number than most. On a realistic campaign it tends to land below what was spent rather than at three to ten times it. That is the honest answer, not a worse one.

Use your own CPM

The defaults here are broad industry ranges, labelled as assumptions rather than measurements, because they are not from anybody's account.

If your company buys paid media, you already know what a thousand impressions costs you, and that figure is the right input. It makes the comparison specific to your business instead of to an industry average, and it is the number your finance team will recognise.

Common questions

Is EMV revenue?
No, and the tool says so next to every result. It is a cost comparison: what buying the same number of views as paid media would have cost. Nobody paid you it and it does not appear on any statement.
Why is my number lower than other calculators?
Because engagement is not priced in. Adding invented weights for likes and comments is what makes other figures large, and there is no defensible source for those weights.
Can I compare it to what I spent?
Yes, and the tool will, but it is careful about the words. It reports a cost comparison rather than a return or an ROI, because a return is a claim about money coming back and this is a claim about what the same attention would have cost to buy.

A rate tells you the size of an audience. It does not tell you who the creator is on camera.

Virlia watches every video frame by frame and ranks creators on what they actually do, with the evidence attached.