Indivd
•
•
Intro
A shopping centre in Southern Europe recorded 98.50% overall absolute counting accuracy in a September 2026 verification, comparing automated entries and exits with manual review of masked video.
A shopping centre in Southern Europe had its people counting checked using samples collected on 5 and 11 September 2026.
The verification reported a sample of 25,046 and covered 136 hours accumulated across counting lines. Indivd’s automated counts were compared frame by frame with manual validation of the same activity.
The reported overall result was 98.50% absolute accuracy. Individual counting lines were also assessed, showing where camera conditions or small samples affected the results.
The centre
Every entrance contributes to the picture
A shopping centre makes decisions across a network of entrances and circulation areas. Which access points carry the most traffic? When does demand build? Did a campaign bring more people through the measured entrances?
Each question depends on the counts recorded at individual measurement points.
An error at one line can distort the picture of that entrance. Different errors across several lines can affect comparisons between areas or periods. A centre-wide total alone does not show where those differences occur.
The verification therefore examined the counting lines individually as well as reporting an overall result.
The check
Every counting error stays in the result
Reviewers examined masked video of real activity and compared entries and exits with Indivd’s automated counts.
The measure was absolute accuracy. Missing one entry and one exit counted as two errors. Errors in opposite directions could not cancel one another.
One exit line illustrates the difference between checking totals and checking accuracy.
The manual count was 567. Indivd’s count was also 567. Yet the detailed review recorded 22 absolute counting errors, giving that line an accuracy of 96.12%.
The totals matched because the discrepancies offset one another. The absolute-error measure kept those discrepancies visible.
DEFINITION
Absolute accuracy is 100% minus the absolute error rate.
Missed crossings and extra counts are included separately, even when they leave the final total unchanged.
What the number carries
A documented basis for reading footfall
The overall result gives the centre a measured reference for its counting performance during the assessed periods. The individual results show where that performance varied.
The report identified obstructed views, camera distance and low camera angles among the reasons for lower accuracy. It also flagged a line where one error represented a larger share of a small count.
These details matter when deciding what to investigate. A line affected by its camera view needs a different review from one whose percentage is sensitive to a small sample.
For the centre, the value is a clearer basis for interpreting footfall. Entrance comparisons, staffing discussions and campaign assessments can be considered alongside evidence about the measurements behind them.
The verification also identifies where further attention is needed. Any camera or configuration changes would require another check to establish the resulting performance.
Common questions
What is footfall in a shopping centre?
Footfall measures people crossing defined counting points, such as shopping-centre entrances. It helps operators understand traffic volumes and patterns over time. Entrance counts do not automatically represent unique visitors, since the same person may enter more than once.
How do you choose a people-counting system for a shopping centre?
Look for verified performance in comparable environments, including different entrance layouts and traffic conditions. Ask which counting points were tested, how much activity was reviewed, what reference was used and how errors were calculated. Results should show both overall accuracy and performance at individual lines.
How accurate are people counters in shopping centres?
Accuracy depends on the installed system, camera view and conditions at each measurement point. A useful accuracy claim states the test dates, sample size, comparison method and result. An overall percentage should be read alongside individual line results to understand variation across the centre.
Why does accurate footfall matter for shopping-centre operations?
Footfall helps inform staffing, service provision, campaign evaluation and comparisons between entrances or periods. Counting errors can distort those comparisons. Verified measurements give teams a clearer basis for interpreting changes before deciding how to respond.
Can people-counting accuracy be verified across multiple entrances?
Yes. Automated counts can be compared with manual counts of the same activity at each entrance. Applying a consistent error measure makes the results comparable, while checking each line separately shows whether an overall result conceals weaker performance at particular points.
Does a people-counting system need to be checked after installation?
Yes. Accuracy reflects the deployment under the conditions tested. Camera movement, configuration changes or obstructions can affect later performance. Periodic verification and checks after significant changes help establish whether the measurements remain reliable.