For Amrita Sidhu, managing director of Medianet, the solution lies in aligning data with purpose rather than chasing vanity metrics. As a strong advocate for the AMEC Barcelona Principles, she highlights how the latest updates push the industry to move beyond counting outputs and instead focus on outcomes, influence and alignment with organisational goals.
By combining quantitative rigour with qualitative insights, Amrita argues that authentic measurement can transform communications from a cost centre into a strategic driver of value.
Since they were first created in 2010, the AMEC Barcelona Principles have been a go-to for anyone in PR and comms—from practitioners and consultants to students and researchers. They’ve helped the industry figure out how to measure and evaluate its work in a way that’s meaningful, transparent, and focused on real results.
Now on their fourth iteration, the Principles represent a global view of what great communication measurement and evaluation looks like today, and what it should look like in the future.
The updated AMEC Barcelona Principles have completely changed how we define success in communications. Instead of just counting things like media mentions, we now focus on what really matters: outcomes, impact, and integrated measurement.
In other words, success isn’t about how much coverage you got, but about whether your communication and PR work actually changed what people think or do e.g audience attitude and behaviours, and if it helped the company achieve its goals.
The principles also push communicators to think bigger than just business results. They encourage us to measure our contribution to overall organisational performance, including things like employee engagement, hiring new talent, and building a stronger reputation. This really helps move the comms team from a cost center to a vital strategic asset.
Another key part of the principles is using both qualitative and quantitative analysis. While the numbers are still crucial, they only tell part of the story. By combining data with a deeper understanding of audience insights, you get a much clearer, more complete picture of whether your communication strategy was a success or has room for improvement.
For me, the most crucial part is objective setting. I’ve learned that the conversation at the C-suite level isn’t just about what we did, but why we did it. My first step is always to ensure my team and leadership are completely aligned on the “why”- what the strategy is truly aiming to achieve. This is something I always emphasise to our clients too. As the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework highlights, objective setting is the first and most important step. It’s a fundamental part of the process that is so often overlooked by companies and agencies of all sizes.
The purpose of our communications must be in sync with the overarching organisational objectives and purpose. Without this alignment, our efforts are just about performance, not genuine purpose.
The ethical use of AI is also paramount here. When we leverage AI for measurement, the key watch-out is ensuring the data is not only quantitative but also qualitative and ethically sourced. AI can surface patterns we might miss, but it must be transparent, privacy-safe and free from bias. We must adapt to AI, be prepared to adopt and experiment with it, but always keep a human in the loop to apply context and challenge the AI’s assumptions.
It’s not just a change in tools, it’s a change in teams’ mindset. I’ve had to sit with a lot of discomfort and guide teams through long discussions to make this happen. The first step is to educate everyone on the clear difference between an output, which is simply what we produced, and an outcome, which is the actual impact we had. This can be a difficult shift because outputs are often easier to count, but outcomes are what truly matter to the business.
And frankly, it also requires leading from the front. While a C-level advocate is essential for driving this change, it’s equally important to manage their expectations and bring them along on the journey. This isn’t an overnight change; it’s a cultural shift that requires patience, consistent effort and regular communication with both C-level and the teams on the ground.
I’ve found that demonstrating the link between a specific campaign and a tangible business result is the most effective way to secure buy-in and prove the value of measuring outcomes. A key watch-out here is trying to do too much too soon. The learning is to start with a phased approach, building trust with small, demonstrable wins before attempting a full-scale transformation of the measurement strategy.
For those not sure where to start, take a guess what the first step for this type of shift is? That’s right: set an objective (aka a success factor).
Vanity metrics are like a dopamine hit. We all experience it, think of that feeling when your LinkedIn post gets 500 views in less than a day. They have their space, sure, but isn’t it more impactful when the most influential person in your network comments on or reposts your content, unprompted? That’s genuine value, not just vanity.
They persist because there’s often a real lack of an alternative to metrics like inflated reach or outdated ASR/AVE. This is why I worked so hard at Medianet and really pushed the team to develop a new dynamic and authentic metric: REAL (Reach. Engagement. Authority. Leverage) Impact Score.
Co-developed with the data science experts at Identrics, this proprietary mention-level metric measures the impact of each media mention by evaluating the outlet, the article and the author. Proving the value of earned media has always been a challenge in PR, but this approach cuts through the noise. It lets you quickly spot the mentions with the greatest influence and gives you clear data to show stakeholders the true value of your communications.
We focused on a new metric because we recognised that the existing ones didn’t provide meaningful insights. While many companies would be happy with a static reach number, wouldn’t it be great if we knew who we were actually reaching and whether they were authentic users?
Vanity metrics aren’t evil; they do have their place for awareness or initial testing, but they become harmful when they distract from what really matters: outcomes, influence, alignment with strategy.
Our goal was to create a measure (aligned with the Barcelona Principles 4.0) that couldn’t be faked, a metric that truly reflected the genuine human-to-human connection we were creating through our communications.
The risk is deceptive comfort. You can feel good about high numbers, loud social chatter, huge impressions, but if none of that ties back to strategic objectives or measurable social impact, you may be steering in the wrong direction. You risk misallocating resources, reinforcing the wrong behaviours, or missing where real impact could happen.
It’s not always obvious. Sometimes high metrics feed morale, create visibility, or win short-term praise. But I ask: what decisions will this data help us make? If the answer is vague, or if it doesn’t lead to real change, then those impressive numbers are more danger than strength.
We should never fail to understand that one way or another, misalignment ultimately has an impact on organisational financial performance. Either by making revenue/costs appear better than they are, or by having an outcome where we fall short of the budgeted bottom line.
In Summary:
This article was first published in Commsroom as part of their featured leader series.