Beyond the clippings: measuring the impact that really counts

(And why the AI overlords are changing everything) 

Let's be honest: you've been in that board meeting. The one where the CEO asks, "So what did we get for our comms budget?" and someone nervously emails through a PDF of press clippings like it's 2003. Everyone nods politely. Nobody's impressed. 

Here's the uncomfortable truth: if you're still measuring PR success by simply counting articles and calculating reach, you're not measuring impact. You're measuring activity. And in 2025, with budgets tight and every dollar under scrutiny, activity doesn't cut it anymore. 

This is particularly acute in New Zealand's compact media landscape. When the same story can run in the Herald, get picked up by Stuff, mentioned on RNZ, and discussed in a BusinessDesk newsletter all within 24 hours, raw placement counts hold less meaning. Context is everything. 

The vanity metrics trap.

"We reached 2 million people!" (Translation: 2 million people might have scrolled past your client's name—and in a country of 5 million, that number probably involves some creative accounting.) 

"AVE value of $500,000!" (Translation: we multiplied some potentially made-up numbers by other potentially made-up numbers and got a big number.) 

"Twelve media placements!" (Translation: your brand got mentioned in paragraph nine of an article about someone else.) 

These are vanity metrics. They look impressive. They mean very little for your business. And deep down, we all know it. 

The problem? Most organisations are still stuck measuring output (how much stuff we did) instead of outcome (what changed). It's like judging a restaurant by how many plates leave the kitchen instead of whether the food is any good. 

At Heft, we see this a lot. And it’s understandable. Attribution in communications is notoriously hard, and some metrics are better than none. But with reporting tools more freely available, our first conversation is usually about replacing the metrics that make you feel good with the ones that drive decisions.  

What leaders actually need to know.

Smart leadership teams don't want fluff. They want answers to strategic questions. Here's how we help our clients get those answers: 

1. Are we controlling the narrative, or is the narrative controlling us? 

Sentiment and tone aren't touchy-feely marketing speak, they're reputation currency. A scathing critique in the NBR can erase months of positive coverage in trade publications. But sentiment isn't just positive versus negative; it's about nuance. 

Is the coverage analytical and data-driven (credibility), or sensationalist and consumer-focused (visibility but possibly wrong audience)? Does the tone position you as a thought leader or a cautionary tale? 

We guide our clients to track sentiment on a proper scale, from very positive through to negative and more importantly, to understand tone alignment. A B2B technology company needs to be featured in analytical, business-focused pieces. A consumer brand needs a different tonal profile entirely. Your measurement framework needs to capture this, not just slap a smiley face on anything that mentions your name. 

2. Is anyone hearing our message? 

Read your last ten media mentions and count how many include your actual strategic messaging. Not just your company name. Your message. 

Being the headline feature versus getting a passing mention in a round-up isn't just different, it's a different universe of impact. We help clients understand the difference between a feature in the Otago Daily Times that positions them as regional leaders versus a brief reference in a national roundup. 

Message penetration tells you whether you're doing strategic communications or just making noise. Most organisations make noise. We work alongside you to control the conversation. 

3. Are we reaching the people who actually matter? 

All reach is not created equal. Five thousand decision-makers reading your profile in a specialist trade publication? That's gold. Five hundred thousand randoms scrolling past a generic mention in a lifestyle blog? That's... less gold. 

In New Zealand's tight media ecosystem, this becomes even more critical. A feature in BusinessDesk might reach 20,000 people, but if those are the exact C-suite executives and policy makers who matter to your business, that's worth exponentially more than a passing mention on a high-traffic news aggregator. 

We work with clients to weight channels appropriately. Premium national outlets get different weights than regional publications. Trade media or specialist newsletters get weighted based on audience relevance. It's not complicated, but it requires thinking strategically instead of just chasing big numbers. 

4. Are we leading the conversation? 

Share of voice isn't about ego (okay, it's a little bit about ego). It's about competitive positioning. If your competitors are dominating the narrative in your sector, you're losing ground whether you realise it or not. 

We map competitive landscapes for our clients. Who else is getting coverage in your space? What's their sentiment profile? How does your share of voice compare? Are you leading the conversation that defines your industry? 

In New Zealand this matters even more. When there are only a handful of major players in most sectors, competitive positioning through media becomes a critical strategic lever. 

The GEO wild card.  

And now for the plot twist that's keeping every communications professional awake at night: Generative Engine Optimisation. 

Remember when you thought you had SEO figured out? Congratulations, the game has changed. Again. 

AI-powered search engines and chatbots aren't indexing content the same way Google did. They're synthesising it, summarising it, and most importantly, choosing which sources to cite and trust. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google's AI Overviews, and Claude are increasingly the first and sometimes only stop for information discovery. 

For New Zealand organisations, this creates both challenges and opportunities. Our media landscape is well-structured and relatively authoritative - the Herald, RNZ, Stuff, and specialist publications like BusinessDesk have algorithmic credibility. But generic or poorly positioned coverage won't get cited by AI systems no matter where it appears. 

What this means for your media strategy: 

• Authority and credibility matter more than ever. AI systems weight sources based on perceived expertise and trustworthiness. Your trade publication profile? More valuable than you thought. That fluffy listicle? Algorithmically irrelevant. 

• Structured, quotable content wins. AI pulls clear, authoritative statements. If your spokesperson is buried in corporate jargon, you're invisible to the machines reading the internet. 

• The long tail is getting longer. Coverage doesn't "expire" the way it used to. AI systems will cite that in-depth feature you secured six months ago just as readily as today's news. Quality compounds. 

• Message consistency becomes critical. AI synthesises across multiple sources. If your narrative is inconsistent, the algorithmic summary will be incoherent. Strategic message discipline isn't just good practice anymore, it's algorithmically essential. 

• Sentiment analysis goes multilingual and contextual. Future measurement frameworks will need to track not just where you appear in traditional media, but how you're being represented in AI-generated summaries and synthetic content. 

The bottom line (finally). 

What gets measured gets managed. But only if you're measuring things that matter. 

The media landscape is fragmenting. AI is rewriting the rules of information discovery and dissemination. New Zealand's compact media ecosystem makes strategic positioning more critical than ever. 

Moving beyond clip counting to multi-dimensional impact assessment isn't about creating fancier reports. It's about demonstrating genuine commercial value, identifying what works and what doesn't, and making strategic decisions based on evidence, instead of vibes.