Marketing and communications teams have never had more information, but too few can say what it changed. Most teams do not have a data problem. They have a decision-making problem.
Dashboards are full of reach, engagement, sentiment, media coverage, website traffic,
search demand, advertising performance, and customer behaviour. The data is collected,
presented, and discussed, but it often has very little influence over what the team does next.
If a metric does not change a decision, it is not an insight. It is reporting overhead. The gap appears because teams often treat measurement, analysis, and strategy as though they are the same thing.
Measurement tells us what happened, analysis helps explain why it happened, and strategy determines what we will do differently because of it.
A dashboard can tell you that something moved. It cannot tell you whether that movement matters.
A large number is not automatically a good result
Consider a campaign that generates a 40 per cent increase in engagement. That sounds positive, but the number alone tells us almost nothing.
Did the message resonate, or were people confused? Did the campaign reach the audience capable of influencing the outcome? Did engagement lead to greater trust, stronger consideration, or any meaningful action?
Now place that engagement result alongside other information.
Search queries show people repeatedly looking for clarification. The campaign landing page has a high exit rate. Customer service teams are receiving the same question. Enquiries and conversions have not moved.
The engagement was real, but it did not necessarily represent approval or intent. It may
have represented friction.
That changes the decision. The team may need to clarify the message, address the
unanswered question, improve the supporting information and then test whether behaviour changes.
Reporting the engagement increase without examining what followed it would produce the wrong conclusion.
The same applies to media coverage. More coverage is not automatically better coverage.
Share of voice is not useful if the conversation is being driven by the wrong issue. Positive
sentiment can hide concerns within a smaller but commercially or reputationally important audience.
A campaign does not become valuable simply because it generated a large number.
Channel data only tells part of the story
Marketing and communications teams often report within their own channel boundaries.
PR reports on coverage and sentiment. Social teams report on reach and engagement. Paid media teams report on ROAS and conversions. Website teams report on traffic and
behaviour. Sales and customer service hold another set of information entirely.
Each team may be reporting accurately while the organisation still misses what the customer is doing.
Channel reports show how channels behaved. Strategy needs to show how people behaved.
At PH Digital, we often find the most useful information in the relationship between different data sources. Media attention may create search demand. Paid activity may generate qualified traffic. Website behaviour may reveal a point of confusion. CRM and sales data then show whether any of that interest became commercially valuable.
Looking at one source in isolation can lead to the wrong response.
If reach is strong but conversion is weak, the business may not need more awareness. It
may need a clearer offer, stronger proof, or a better customer journey. If website traffic is falling but conversion remains strong, the issue may be demand generation. If customers purchase once but do not return, the greatest opportunity may sit in retention rather than acquisition.
Each is a different problem requiring a different investment.
Start with the decision
The usefulness of the data depends on the quality of the question being asked. Before opening a dashboard, teams should define the decision they are trying to make.
Are we trying to determine which audience matters most? Why a message failed to land?
Where budget should be directed? Whether communications activity is needed at all?
Without a clear question, reporting becomes a search for numbers that make the activity
look successful.
Every meaningful finding should be translated through three steps:
-
The signal: What changed, for whom and compared with what?
- The meaning: Why do we think it changed, and what other evidence supports that
conclusion? -
The decision: What will we stop, start or change as a result?
The decision should have an owner, a timeframe, and a way to test whether it worked. That is the difference between reporting data and using it.
Data must be allowed to challenge the plan
The most valuable data is often the information that contradicts what the team expected to see.
Perhaps the audience cares about a different issue. Perhaps the message intended to build confidence created more questions. Perhaps a stakeholder group assumed to be important had little influence over the outcome.
The job is not to make the data fit the strategy. It is to change the strategy when the
evidence tells us we were wrong.
This is difficult in organisations where reporting is treated primarily as proof of success. Conflicting evidence gets explained away, positive metrics are elevated and the next
campaign follows the same structure.
Strong teams create enough space to say, "We expected this, but the evidence is showing us something else." They then act on it.
Sometimes the correct decision is that marketing or communications cannot solve the
problem. If dissatisfaction is being caused by pricing, product quality, service delivery or an operational failure, more promotion may amplify the issue.
The business may need to fix the source of the problem before asking the communications team to change the story around it.
Change the report
Closing the translation gap does not require another platform. It requires a different reporting conversation.
Every report should answer:
-
What did we learn?
-
Why does it matter?
-
What are we changing?
-
How will we know whether that decision worked?
Metrics that cannot inform one of those questions should be moved out of the main
discussion. Reporting should not be an archive of activity. It should be a tool for deciding where the organisation places its next dollar, hour, and message.
AI will continue to make data faster to collect, summarise and compare. It will not remove the need for commercial context, critical thinking, human judgement, and strategy.
The teams creating the most value will not be those with the biggest dashboards. They will be the ones that can look at the information in front of them and make a better decision because of it.
Perspectives is a Telum Media submitted article series, where diverse viewpoints spark thought-provoking conversations about the role of PR and communications in today's world. This Perspectives piece was submitted by Christine Kearney, Partner & Chief Executive Officer at PH Digital, a specialist digital growth agency working with ambitious brands across retail, fashion, beauty, lifestyle, hospitality, and professional services.
Christine leads PH’s commercial and strategic direction, helping businesses connect performance marketing, search, customer behaviour and revenue data to make stronger growth decisions. She is particularly focused on closing the gap between reporting and action, ensuring data is used to identify commercial problems, test assumptions and direct investment towards the areas capable of generating meaningful returns. Christine is also a regular commentator on digital performance, business growth and leadership, drawing on more than 15 years of experience building brands and scaling businesses across the globe
.jpg)