By Susan Thomas, CEO, 10Fold
PR and communications teams have more data than they have ever had. They can measure media coverage, social engagement, website traffic, search visibility, AI citations, referral traffic, conversions and, increasingly, pipeline and revenue influence.
That should make it easier to demonstrate business impact. But more measurement has created a different challenge: knowing what the data actually proves.
This distinction matters in the C-suite, where leaders tend to place greater trust in metrics tied to pipeline and sales that in measures such as impressions, engagement or share of voice. Communications teams therefore need to show how those earlier indicators connect to the business outcomes executives value—without claiming that the data proves more than it does.
10Fold’s 2026 Integrated Communications Survey found that between 81% and 88% of B2B marketing leaders say measurement sometimes or very often affects strategy and budget decisions across communications channels. Yet only 49% are very confident in the accuracy and completeness of their communications data.
For marketing and PR leaders, the issue is no longer whether communications can be measured. It is whether teams are making claims that the available evidence can credibly support.
More metrics do not automatically create more proof
Most communications organizations already have access to significant amounts of data. Website and social analytics are each included in reporting by 67% of respondents, CRM data by 63%, paid media platforms by 60%, and marketing automation, media monitoring and AI or LLM visibility platforms by 58%.
The problem is what happens between those systems. Only 35% say they have fully integrated reporting across earned media, paid social, content and digital. That leaves many teams combining results from multiple platforms and attribution models to explain what communications contributed to the business.
Those methods do not all prove the same thing. A media placement followed by a website visit can demonstrate audience action. Increased earned coverage alongside higher branded search may show correlation. Multi-touch attribution may indicate that PR contributed somewhere in a longer buying journey. Each is useful evidence, but none should be made to prove more than it can.
Attribution and causation are not the same
This becomes especially important when teams try to connect communications to revenue. In the research, 43% use multi-touch attribution, 25% use correlation or directional analysis and 18% use first-touch attribution.
First-touch attribution can identify where a buyer initially engaged. Multi-touch attribution can indicate that communications played a role among several interactions. Correlation can show that two results moved together. None automatically proves that one activity caused a sale.
That does not make the measurement less valuable. It means the interpretation needs to be more precise. The risk comes when directional evidence is presented as direct attribution, or useful evidence is ignored because it cannot be tied cleanly to revenue.
AI has added another layer to the mix
More than half of respondents now measure AI search visibility or brand citations in AI-generated content, and 58% include an AI or LLM visibility platform in integrated reporting. An AI citation may demonstrate visibility, while repeated citations across relevant prompts may provide evidence of authority or discoverability. AI referral traffic can show that visibility produced an audience action.
Only when that activity can be connected further into the buyer journey should the claim move closer to pipeline or revenue impact.
Build a chain of evidence
The answer is not to dismiss visibility and engagement measures as “vanity metrics,” nor is it to force every PR result into a revenue calculation. It is to build a credible chain of evidence connecting communications activity to the strongest business evidence available.
That connection matters to executive audiences. According to 10Fold’s research, 87% of marketing leaders agree that their CEO or board mostly trusts metrics aligned with business outcomes. Revenue impact was the most trusted metric at 34%, while pipeline influence ranked at 16% and share of voice ranked lowest at 11%.
That starts with visibility: did the market encounter the company and its ideas? Next comes trust and authority: did credible media, analysts, experts or AI systems reinforce those ideas? Then comes action: did someone visit the website, engage with content, fill out a form or request more information? Finally, where the data supports it, teams can connect those actions to leads, pipeline, revenue or another business priority.
What marketing leaders should do next
For communications and marketing leaders, the priority is to make interpretation part of the measurement process. Teams should agree on a limited set of business-aligned KPIs, connect data across communications and business systems, and clearly distinguish direct attribution, correlation and informed interpretation.
PR does not need to prove that it caused every business result to demonstrate value. The teams that earn executive confidence will be those that can explain what the data proves, what it does not, and how communications contributes to the outcomes the business values.
About the Author
Susan Thomas is the founder and CEO of 10Fold, a communications agency focused exclusively on B2B technology. Susan is also an investor and advisor, serving as a limited partner in Venture Capital and on advisory boards for Citizen’s Bank and Wichita State University’s School of Business.
