What’s stopping comms having a seat at the table
Written by Shanna Crispin
Spend a little time exploring strategic communications on LinkedIn and a common complaint will quickly surface: “Leaders don’t understand what we do”.
Recently, I came across another conversation on measurement and evaluation. The crux was that the industry is still failing to meaningfully measure its work.
It struck me that these two things are closely linked; if communications practitoners want leaders to acknowledge their strategic role, then we need to start speaking leadership language. That starts with providing decision makers with useful reports that show how the function supports organisational outcomes.
Vanity metrics
I (wrongly) assumed that the industry had moved beyond vanity metrics. But as this substack from former UK Government Comms Chief Simon Baugh highlights, the temptation to focus on showy numbers appears to be alive and well.
Vanity metrics are simply numbers that look good but don’t really mean anything, like the graphs Meta conveniently creates showing the number of comments or likes on a Facebook post.
This has been a common conversation over my career, including my time in Local Government – it all looks good, but what does it really mean? Does the fact that 100 people liked a post about rescued kittens have any real impact on public trust and confidence?
Vanity metrics create activity reporting, not strategic insight.
Measurement frameworks
I can sing the praises of measurement frameworks until the cows come home. There are a few around, such as this one from the UK Government Communication Service.
The existing frameworks are similar in that they look beyond what was done, and seek to identify what happened as a result. Vanity metrics, and other easy-to-report numbers, stop at what was done – the output.
We published a media release. That’s an output.
We got media coverage. That’s an out-take.
None of that tells leadership whether communications is helping achieve organisational objectives.
The gold lies in the impact that comes from the media coverage, such as community sentiment.
Community confidence improved. That’s impact.
Measurement frameworks are useful supports to help identify what it is you’re measuring and where you should be focusing to provide meaningful reports.
But there is another step crucial to ensuring leaders pay attention when communications reports are put in front of them.
Leadership conversations
Communications reporting should be relevant and help leaders make decisions. Reporting social media engagement statistics isn’t likely to be particularly relevant for most CEOs.
However, Chief Executives, Boards and Elected Officials are all familiar with risk and return on investment. This is where communications leaders need to take the conversation.
Communications teams often try to educate leaders on communications language, instead of translating communications into organisational language.
Absolutely, continue to talk about community sentiment, trust and reputation. But make sure it is connected to organisational consequences or strategic advice that leaders can act on.
For example, as a result of the proactive media work undertaken related to X, we have mitigated the risk around Y. This is evidenced by community sentiment shifting more positively, as demonstrated through data.
Strategic communications functions are equally as important as health and safety and legal teams – we all identify and mitigate risks that can have disastrous effects on an organisation. The difference is that there’s no ambiguity or lack of understanding when it comes to legal action or workplace safety.
Strategic communications hasn’t yet cemented itself as a crucial role that protects an organisation from reputational harm. And the fact is that communications will not be treated strategically if it continues to report tactically.