As part of the AMEC Diploma in Strategic Communication Planning and Measurement, Jim Macnamara lists more than a dozen frameworks for evaluating communication – some of which have been around since before Y2K was something to worry about.

We’ve had the “how-to” for decades.

And yet, in 2025, vanity metrics are thriving while outcome-focused measurement remains the exception, not the norm.

So here’s the question: if communicators themselves have struggled to adopt measurement – despite decades of models, training and reminders – why do we assume that simply sending out coverage, posts or content will be enough to change anyone else’s behaviour?

The real sticking point

When measurement comes up, the same obstacles appear:

• Budget – “We can’t afford it.”
• Accessibility – “The tools are too complicated.”
• Fear – “What if we find out it isn’t working?”

These concerns are real. But they’re not new. And they’re not enough of an excuse anymore.

The frameworks exist. The skills can be learned. What’s missing is a culture that treats measurement as non-negotiable. Too often, “success” gets defined as media stories or posts published.

That’s not strategy. That’s output reporting without proof it made a difference.

What this teaches us about change

Here’s the irony: communicators pride themselves on being experts at influence. But if we can’t shift our own habits, why do we expect one-off messages to shift anyone else’s?

Change doesn’t happen just because a message goes out.

It happens when we:

• Understand the baseline
• Identify what moves people
• Anticipate barriers
• Track progress
• Adjust when things don’t land

If we wanted to build measurement literacy inside our own profession, we’d start by studying the contributing factors: leadership expectations, comfort with data, perceived relevance, barriers (real or imagined), even math anxiety.

That’s the same rigour we owe the audiences we’re trying to reach.

The bigger lesson

One of our industry’s persistent challenges is defaulting to what’s easy to count. Outputs like stories placed, posts shared or impressions gained matter – they tell us whether our work is reaching people and landing in the right places.

The problem is when outputs are treated as the only measure of success. On their own, they don’t tell us whether awareness increased, trust was built or behaviour actually changed.

Organizations like AMEC have worked hard to move the field beyond this mindset. But across the industry, progress has been uneven. And until outcomes are measured alongside outputs, we’ll keep mistaking numbers for results.

True effectiveness requires persistence, relevance, feedback and yes – measurement.

Final thought

Measurement isn’t a burden. It’s the mechanism that shows whether communication is working, where it can improve and how it creates value for the organization.

It’s time to move past equating what we did with success. And it’s time to stop treating measurement like extra credit.

Because if we want to be taken seriously, measurement isn’t optional. It’s the cost of entry.

 

📝 Want to share your perspective on this or other industry challenges?

Guest blogging is a powerful way to enrich the conversation, build visibility, and connect with peers. The AMEC Insights blog and Member Alert newsletter welcomes insightful, non-promotional contributions from across the global measurement and media intelligence community.

📬 AMEC Measurement and Evaluation members we want to share your insights, to submit an article or idea, message or email Julie Wilkinson.