The data gap in corporate communications and how to close it

What channel reporting achieves and what it does not

Classic channel reporting is not worthless. It shows whether a post was seen, how a campaign performed on a specific channel, and what the open rate is. For operational decisions regarding which format works on which channel, these figures are entirely relevant and useful.

The problem arises when channel data is the sole basis for strategic communication decisions. This is because they measure at the wrong level: at the channel level instead of the topic and target group level.

The questions that actually occupy executive boards are different:

• Are we actually communicating about the topics prescribed by our strategy, or have we drifted away from them in our day-to-day operations?

• Which target groups do we reach regularly, and which ones have we not addressed for months?

• Where are we investing resources without being able to see the strategic contribution?

• How is our communication focus developing over time, and do we notice a shift before it becomes a problem?

None of these questions can be answered with impressions, clicks, or follower numbers. Not because the numbers are wrong, but because they measure on a different dimension.

Where the gap comes from

The data gap is not the result of a lack of care. It is structurally determined by the way communication is planned and measured in most organisations today.

The typical process looks like this: The communication strategy is developed in PowerPoint, and strategic topics and target groups are defined. In everyday business, work is then channel-oriented: What are we posting on LinkedIn today? What goes into the newsletter? What goes on the website? The connection between the strategic "why" and the operational "what" is often lost in the process.

At the end of the quarter, evaluation is done channel by channel, and this is precisely where the circle does not close. There is no answer to the question of whether communication in the past quarter covered the defined strategic topics proportionally, or whether a target group was systematically forgotten.

Added to this is a practical problem: merging data manually from different channels is time-consuming and error-prone. Meta, LinkedIn, newsletter tools – they all provide numbers in different formats, with different time horizons, and different designations. What is called "impressions" on one channel is called "views" on the next. Follower numbers are often only available as a current snapshot, not as a historical time series. Creating a meaningful report takes hours, and the result still does not answer the truly relevant questions.

The shift in perspective:

From channels to topics

What would be the alternative? The key lies in a conceptual shift: away from the channel as the starting point, towards the topic and the target group.

This sounds simpler than it is, because it requires restructuring the entire communication planning process. No longer: "What do we post on which channel?" But rather: "What strategic topic are we communicating about, and which target group do we want to reach with it?"

When topics and target groups become the starting point for every communication measure, the evaluation also changes fundamentally. Instead of channel-specific individual figures, a picture of communication along strategic axes emerges:

Which topic received how much communication performance over the last three months? Which target group was intensively targeted and which one was barely addressed? Are there topics that are a priority in the strategy but lag behind in day-to-day practice?

These are questions that communication managers should have answers to. And they are questions that turn communication from a cost factor into a demonstrable driver of strategy.

Another aspect that is often underestimated in practice: not every target group is active on every channel. Those who want to reach younger target groups will hardly find them on Facebook. Those who want to appeal to older decision-makers will achieve little impact on TikTok. Topic-oriented planning therefore also means logically deriving channel decisions from the target group logic and not vice versa.

From theory to practice

The shift from channel-thinking to topic-thinking is not purely a technical problem. It begins with a structural decision: How is communication planned within the organisation?

Organisations that have taken this step report noticeable changes in their daily work: less time spent merging data, more clarity regarding the strategic contribution of communication work, and a significantly better basis for discussions with the executive board.

What this can mean in concrete terms is shown by the example of a Swiss company that made the shift from Excel-based planning to a topic-oriented communication structure – with measurable effects on efficiency and transparency.

Read the full case study ➔

What a good comms evaluation should achieve

In summary, we can define what a communication evaluation worthy of the name should achieve:

It should show whether communication is aligned with strategy – that is, whether the defined topics are actually being communicated. It should provide information on target group coverage – who is reached regularly and who is not. It should make development over time visible – not just the current snapshot. And it should make resource deployment comprehensible, so that communication can be understood as an investment, not a cost centre.

This is not a utopian requirement profile. It is the standard that modern communication work should meet and is achievable today with the right tools.

Conclusion

The data gap in corporate communications is real, but it can be closed. The first step is conceptual: communication is no longer thought of "channel-first", but planned "topic- and target-group-first". What follows is an evaluation that shows not just whether a channel worked, but whether the communication achieved what it was designed to do.