Why Communicators Must Measure What Matters Not Just What’s Easy
Despite better frameworks, AVEs and vanity metrics still dominate communication measurement. Here's why that must change – and one practical step you can take today to start measuring what really matters.
I've been thinking a lot lately about how we measure the impact of communication. It’s not a new topic, but it came into sharp focus again after the FIR Interview with Richard Bagnall of AMEC last month that Shel and I hosted. Richard made a compelling case for how far the industry has come in terms of frameworks, standards, and tools.
And yet, I find myself wondering: When will anything really change?
Despite the advances in evaluation thinking, there's plenty of talk that says we’re still seeing the same outdated patterns: AVEs (advertising value equivalency) clinging on, “reach” presented as impact, and communication teams pressured to show big numbers, not meaningful ones.
So with that critical lens in place, let’s look again at why measuring what’s easy can hold us back – and what we might do instead.
What’s Easy – and Why It Persists
It’s no mystery why AVEs and similar metrics have stuck around. They’re quick to produce, easy to understand, and they look good in a deck. But that doesn’t make them valid.
Richard Bagnall and AMEC have been vocal about this for years. Their 2017 paper laid out 22 reasons to reject AVEs. That's a lot, and perhaps is why there seems to be little traction on the idea. Maybe it's hard to choose from so many.
A few do stand out clearly to me:
- “AVEs are a vanity metric” – they provide big, impressive numbers that sound good but lack substance.
- “You become what you measure” – as Harvard Business Review author Dan Ariely puts it, “Human beings adjust behaviour based on the metrics they’re held against. Anything you measure will impel a person to optimise their score on that metric. What you measure is what you’ll get. Period.” Chasing AVEs drives “spray and pray” media strategies, not focused, strategic communication.
- “Advertising and PR are different things” – yet AVEs flatten them into the same measurement logic, which undermines the credibility of both.
And perhaps most damning:
- “AVEs don’t reflect objectives” – they measure volume, not whether communication succeeded in supporting actual measurable goals.
✅ What to do instead:
Start by aligning your metrics with your communication objectives. For every campaign or project, ask yourself:
- What outcome am I trying to influence? (eg, awareness, understanding, behaviour change)
- What evidence would prove this happened?
- What indicators, quantitative or qualitative, could best reflect that?
What Really Matters
If we truly want to measure the value of communication, we need to go deeper. That means looking at:
- Outcomes – what changed because of the communication?
- Outtakes – what did the audience understand, believe, or feel?
- Business impact – how did it contribute to objectives?
These are the building blocks of AMEC’s Integrated Evaluation Framework and the Barcelona Principles 4.0 – particularly Principle #5: “AVEs are not the value of communication.”
As Katie Paine put it bluntly in her recent LinkedIn post, the suggestion that the industry is “just now moving towards standards” is insulting to the many professionals who’ve spent years developing and applying effective, objective-focused measures.
Her frustration is justified as AMEC and countless advocates have long shown that valid metrics already exist. The issue isn’t a lack of frameworks. It’s that too many people still choose not to use them.
Why Change Is Hard – and Still Necessary
The obstacles are real. I've experienced them. Undoubtedly you have, too:
- Stakeholders asking for "something that looks financial"
- Budgets stretched too thin for analytics tools
- Confusion about what “good measurement” actually looks like
But we can’t let that justify sticking with metrics that mislead or distract. Change begins with asking better questions:
- What is this communication trying to achieve?
- What would success actually look like?
- How will we know we’ve made a difference?
A Shift in Perspective
As a long-time judge in communication awards programmes, I’ve seen the difference this makes. The strongest entries aren’t those with the biggest numbers. They’re the ones that show clarity of purpose, relevance of insight, and clear alignment between strategy, execution, and impact.
Above all, they know how to measure the outcomes of their actions – and it's not with AVEs.
Takeaways
- AVEs may be convenient, but they actively undermine the strategic credibility of communication.
- “What’s easy” often drives the wrong behaviour – volume over value, visibility over meaning.
- Tools and frameworks exist – we need to use them and push for smarter conversations inside our organisations.
- We don’t need to be perfect. We just need to be intentional.
What’s your take? Are you seeing a shift in how communication is measured in your world – or are we still stuck in the old patterns?
Share your thoughts in the comments or via LinkedIn, Bluesky or Threads+Mastodon – I’d love to hear about what you're seeing.
Related Reading:
