Proving Comms Business Impact Starts with a Measurement Framework

Increasingly, communications leaders are being asked to show how their work contributed to broader organizational goals. While some have already embraced measurement as a way to demonstrate that contribution, many are still grappling with a familiar question: how do I show that my work actually created business impact? 

This challenge isn’t new. Since the formalization of PR as a business function, teams have struggled to translate communications outcomes into direct, measurable impact on the bottom line. Measurement (especially in B2B communications) can therefore tend to center on tactical activity and performance indicators that show progress against communications goals. When measurement stops there, it can fail to speak the language that CEOs, boards, and executive teams use to evaluate success. 

This is frustrating for everyone involved. Communications and business leaders are working toward the same goals… so why is it so difficult to prove business impact? 

The short answer: demonstrating a true link between comms work and business results requires intention and treating measurement as a strategic discipline – not just a component of reporting. Luckily, there’s no better time than the beginning of a new year to set up your 2026 measurement framework for success. 

A practical framework: activity, results, impact 

To create more business-ready reporting, it helps to think about measurement through three distinct layers: activity, results, and impact. Together, these building blocks form a progression from what you did, to what it achieved, to why it mattered. 

Layer 1: Activity 

• Answers the question: “What did we do?” 

• Measures: Output 

• Examples: “We secured 217 media hits, published 12 LinkedIn posts, and submitted to 8 awards.” 

Activity reporting captures the volume of work completed. It offers no context, rationale, or resultant outcome; it just documents outputs. While it satisfies as a literal answer to “what did we do?,” it refuses to predict or volunteer any help for the inevitable follow-up questions – namely “why did we do it?” and “what did this accomplish?” 

Reporting that focuses 100% only on activity is rare; in practice it’s almost automatic to include some indication of broader performance. Still, it’s worth asking yourself if your reporting goes far enough to show the outcomes of your activities. If not, it’s time to consider . . .  

Layer 2: Results  

• Answers the question: “What did we accomplish?” 

• Measures: Progress against marcomms goals 

• Examples: “Share of voice rose 5%, engagement rate doubled, and we won two new awards.” 

Results metrics move beyond output to show progress, emphasizing trends, directionality, and effectiveness over raw counts. 

These metrics require forethought. Teams need to define success metrics up front, align on benchmarks, and commit to capturing the right data. That takes planning and surrounding infrastructure in the form of a measurement framework and analytics resources. 

Results metrics are great for showing progress against communications goals. But given that these goals don’t always translate directly back to business goals, they can leave teams with takeaways that still don’t speak the language of executive leadership. Which brings us to . . .  

Layer 3: Impact 

• Answers the question: “How did this change behavior?” 

• Measures: Impact on the bottom line (business goals) 

• Examples: “This feature story generated three direct leads; awareness and consideration among priority audiences increased quarter-over-quarter; brand trust has hit an all-time high.” 

Impact metrics answer a different question entirely: how did communications influence perception, behavior, or business outcomes? Impact measurement matters most to leadership as it connects communications efforts to outcomes that matter at the enterprise level. 

Impact is the hardest layer to measure well. It requires having the previous two layers in place. It requires longer time horizons, multiple data sources, engagement from across the organization, and a willingness to accept that attribution will never be perfect. External communications wins like earned media placements or conference speaking engagements rarely produce a quantifiable and verifiable link to incremental revenue or units sold. Impact measurement instead relies on directional indicators, proxy metrics, and credible signals of influence over time. 

But that difficulty is exactly why impact metrics are powerful. They force clearer goal-setting, closer alignment with business priorities, and more intentional communications conversations and strategies. 

When measurement moves beyond reporting 

When teams can clearly articulate not just what they did, but what changed because they did it, the value of communications gets re-cast.  

That shift doesn’t happen accidentally. It requires intention, discipline, and a willingness to ask the harder questions about success. The organizations that get the most value from communications are the ones that plan for measurement early, align it to business priorities, and treat it as a strategic discipline – not just a reporting exercise.