Dashboards are shiny. They make us feel productive, even strategic: charts tilting up, numbers in the millions, neat comparisons against competitors. But the real trap of surface‑level metrics is this: we mistake outputs for outcomes. That mistake turns activity into a proxy for impact and confidence into an illusion.
The Logic Chain
Market intelligence has a simple guardrail: the program logic model. It looks academic, but it’s common sense:
Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Outtakes → Outcomes → Impact
- Inputs: The planning and groundwork – audience definitions, baselines, SMART objectives.
- Activities: The things we do – writing, designing, pitching, posting, hosting.
- Outputs: What appears in the world – coverage, posts, events, publications.
- Outtakes: Early signals from audiences – site visits, content completion, downloads, sign‑
- Outcomes: What changed in the audience – awareness, trust, understanding, intent.
- Impact: What changed for the business – sales, talent attraction, reputation, risk mitigation.
Each link matters. Break the chain and now you have to guess. Impressions may mean exposure, but to whom and to what effect? Mentions may mean visibility, but they cannot be equated to belief. Without the steps in between, we’re guessing at best – and misleading at worst.
Why the Confusion Persists
It’s not laziness – it’s habit. Outputs are quick, accessible and easy to count. We can tally potential reach, clip counts, social mentions and share of voice at the push of a button. Outcomes are harder. They require asking the right questions, tracking change over time and often gathering audience evidence. Here’s the risk: when outputs stand in for outcomes, decisions rest on sand. We tell ourselves a spike in media mentions equals greater trust, or that more clicks equal greater credibility.
The crux of the matter: until we analyze audiences or investigate business impact, the incredible value marketing and communications brings to the table will inevitably stay confined within its own bounds.
The Allure and Danger of Dashboards
Automated reporting tools, especially when coupled with AI, are powerful accelerators. They collect, sort and visualize data faster than any team could manage alone. But speed is not the same as judgment. Left unexamined, dashboards collapse the difference between outputs and outcomes, presenting both as if they were proof of success.
The danger isn’t in the tools – it’s (1) the way we read them and (2) the context we attribute to them. A line graph doesn’t ask: who changed, what changed and why does it matter? Nor does a line explain the context of the time or data in question. That’s where human intelligence comes in. AI accelerates; it doesn’t adjudicate. It points to patterns, but it cannot validate whether those patterns led to impact.
A Hypothetical Scenario
Imagine a campaign to position a brand as a leader in sustainability. At first glance, the numbers look impressive:
- Outputs: 150 media mentions, 20 million impressions, 10,000 likes.
But dig a little deeper:
- Outtakes: A spike in traffic to the sustainability page, but 85% bounce rate and minimal content completion.
- Outcomes: When surveyed, only 10% of the priority audience recalls the sustainability message; trust scores remain flat.
- Impact: No measurable lift in reputation, no increase in partnership inquiries.
By output measures alone, the campaign reads like a win. However, by outcome measures, it fell short. Only by checking the full chain do we see the truth – and learn how to improve for next time.
The Cultural Shift We Need
This isn’t about abandoning outputs. They matter. They show activity and are part of the story. But they are only the beginning. To show value and impact, we must:
- Reward outcomes over volume. Celebrate changes in audience belief or behavior, not just raw totals.
- Build outcome checks into every plan. Even lightweight methods (panels, polls, quick interviews) create more certainty than assumptions.
- Treat AI and dashboards as accelerators, not arbiters. Let them point the way, but don’t let them write the ending.
- Time‑box evaluation. Schedule outcome reviews at set points (e.g., two weeks, six weeks, post‑campaign) so learning is continuous, not retroactive.
Schrödinger’s Cat: Acknowledging Uncertainty
In physics, Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment meant to illustrate the paradox of uncertainty. A cat is placed in a box with a mechanism that could either kill it or leave it alive—but until the box is opened, the cat exists in a state of being both alive and dead. The point: until we measure reality directly, we’re only dealing with probabilities.
Communications measurement faces a similar paradox. Metrics like potential reach or media share show what could be happening—but until we “open the box” with data on audience engagement, perception shifts and business outcomes, we’re only observing possibilities, not reality.
How to Upgrade Your Metrics
Making the shift from outputs to outcomes doesn’t require overhauling everything. It requires discipline:
- Anchor to objectives. Every metric should map to a business‑aligned goal. If it doesn’t, it’s noise.
- Label clearly. Call reach and impressions outputs, not awareness. Call a like an outtake, not belief.
- Add audience checks. Use surveys, interviews or polls to show what changed.
- Instrument intent. UTMs, CTAs and referral tags help link activity to outcomes.
- Close the loop. Always ask: what do we know now that can change what we do next?
The Takeaway
Outputs are not outcomes. Outcomes are not impact. Each has a role, but only outcomes and impact showcase audience and business value. Dashboards can dazzle, but intelligence provides meaning. If we want to show progress – not just motion – we must measure beyond activity.
Image created via ChatGPT based on guidance from the authors.
Simply put, outputs show you were busy, outcomes show you were effective and impact demonstrates where and how you mattered.
