Insights to Actions Template

What it is

The Insights to Actions template bridges the gap between monitoring and decision-making. You’ve spotted something in your data—maybe a narrative isn’t landing, maybe a stakeholder group has a concern you’re not addressing, maybe sentiment is shifting. Now what?

This framework helps you move from “interesting observation” to “here’s what we’ll change and why”. It forces clarity: Is this insight actually significant enough to change our approach, or is it noise? If we do act on it, what specifically changes and who needs to know? How will we know if the action worked?

Unlike dashboards (which show what happened) or monitoring briefs (which summarise what’s happening), this template asks: “Given what we know, what should we do differently?” It’s the decision tool that comes after analysis.

This works best for organisations where communications decisions need justification—where you can’t just change messaging on a hunch, you need to show the evidence. It’s also valuable when multiple teams need to agree on a course of action: shared analysis prevents conflict.

When to use it

Use this template when:

A monitoring insight suggests your current messaging isn’t working (e.g., “customers value safety over price, but we’re emphasising cost”)
You’re considering a strategic messaging change and need to build a case for it
A stakeholder group is giving feedback that contradicts your strategy (do you adjust or stand firm?)
You’ve discovered an emerging narrative you’re not positioned on (should you enter it?)
Your team disagrees on whether an insight justifies action (use this to debate evidence)

Don’t use this template when:

You’re doing routine monitoring (use the weekly brief for that)
You need immediate crisis response (use crisis protocol; this is too slow)
You’re exploring long-term strategy in vacuum (this is tactical to current data, not foundational strategy)
You have an obvious decision that doesn’t need analysis (don’t over-document clarity)

Inputs needed

Specific insight from monitoring (what did you observe, with supporting data)
Context on current messaging (what are we saying now)
Feedback or evidence on how this message is landing
Data on who holds this view (is it widespread or niche stakeholder concern)
Business constraints (what can we realistically change, what’s locked)
Timeline for decision (do we need to act now, or is this a longer-term adjustment)

The template

Insight to Action Analysis

Analysis completed: [Date] Completed by: [Name/team] Related insight from: [Weekly brief #, Issue log #, Research project]

The insight

What we discovered: [1-2 sentences stating the observation clearly]

Evidence supporting this:

Evidence 1: [Data point with source and timeframe]
Evidence 2: [Data point with source and timeframe]
Evidence 3: [Data point with source and timeframe]

Stakeholder group most affected: [Who is expressing this view / where did we see it]

How strong is this signal:

Weak: Anecdotal, small sample, single source
Moderate: Consistent across multiple sources, medium sample size
Strong: Widespread pattern, multiple sources, clear statistical weight

Current state vs desired state

What we’re currently saying (core message): [Current messaging on this topic]

Who we’re saying it to (intended audience): [Primary audience for this message]

How it’s landing (actual reception): [What data shows about how this message is being received]

Gap: [Where is the mismatch between intended and actual reception]

Root cause analysis

Why isn’t the current approach working?

Reason 1: [Analysis of what’s failing]
Reason 2: [Analysis of what’s failing]
Reason 3: [Analysis of what’s failing]

Is this about the message or the messenger? [Is the problem the words, the source, the channel, the timing, or something else?]

Could we be misreading this data? [What would need to be true for our current approach to actually be fine?]

Action options

Option 1: Change the message

What we’d say instead: [New messaging]
To which audience: [Who needs to hear this]
Via which channels: [How we’d communicate it]
Risk: [What could go wrong with this approach]
Resource required: [Time/cost to implement]

Option 2: Change the emphasis/priority

Keep current message, but: [How would we re-prioritise it]
To which audience: [Who needs to hear this]
Expected impact: [What would change if we did this]
Risk: [What could go wrong with this approach]
Resource required: [Time/cost to implement]

Option 3: Change the audience/channels

Keep message, change: [Who we’re reaching or how we reach them]
Specific channels: [Which channels would be different]
Expected impact: [What would improve]
Risk: [What could go wrong with this approach]
Resource required: [Time/cost to implement]

Option 4: Do nothing (defend current approach)

Rationale: [Why we’re standing firm]
Conditions we’d monitor: [What data would tell us if this was wrong]
Timeline to reassess: [When we’d review if this decision holds]
Risk: [What could happen if we’re wrong]
Resource required: [Monitoring/defence communication]

Recommended action

Best option: [Option 1/2/3/4] — Because: [Why this is better than alternatives]

Specific change we’ll make:

[Action 1: Specific, measurable thing]
[Action 2: Specific, measurable thing]
[Action 3: Specific, measurable thing]

Who needs to approve/know:

[Stakeholder/approval authority with deadline]
[Stakeholder/approval authority with deadline]

Timeline:

Approval needed by: [Date]
Implementation begins: [Date]
Full implementation by: [Date]

Success measures:

We’ll know this worked if: [Specific data point changes]
Secondary measures: [Other positive outcomes we might see]
We’d know it failed if: [Specific negative outcome or lack of improvement]

Monitoring during implementation:

Weekly check: [What we’ll measure weekly]
30-day review: [What we’ll assess after a month]
90-day review: [Whether this change achieved the goal]

Stakeholder alignment

Who supports this action:

[Stakeholder group 1]: Why they see value
[Stakeholder group 2]: Why they see value

Who might resist:

[Stakeholder group 1]: Why they might object
[Stakeholder group 2]: Why they might object

How we’ll address resistance:

[To group 1]: [What we’d communicate]
[To group 2]: [What we’d communicate]

Communication plan for the change

If we’re changing the message, who needs to know first (in priority order):

[Internal audience/team]: What they need to know
[Stakeholder group]: What they need to know
[Public/external]: How we’ll communicate this

Messaging to explain the change (if needed): [If we’re shifting position, what do we say about why? Or is this just a course correction we don’t explicitly announce?]

Channels and timing:

Internal communication by: [Date and method]
Stakeholder briefing by: [Date and method]
Public-facing change by: [Date and method]

AI prompt

Base prompt

I've uncovered an insight from our monitoring that I think should change how we're communicating, but I need to think it through clearly before recommending action.

The insight is: [Describe what you discovered]

Supporting evidence:
[Paste relevant data: quotes, mention counts, sentiment data, stakeholder feedback]

Our current messaging on this topic is: [What are we saying now]

The gap I see is: [What's not landing, what we're missing, what audience needs we're not meeting]

Help me work through:
1. Is this insight strong enough to justify a change? (Is it widespread, consistent, significant?)
2. What are the root causes? (Is it the message itself, or the audience, timing, or channel?)
3. What are realistic options? (Change the message, change who we're talking to, change emphasis, or stand firm?)
4. For each option, what's the risk and what would it take to implement?
5. Which option is best and why?

Format this as a clear analysis suitable for presenting to leadership or a decision-making committee. Help me make a defensible case, not just an intuitive one.

Prompt variations

Variation 1: Contradictory data

I have conflicting signals and need to understand what's really happening. Help me analyse:

Signal 1 (suggests action A): [Describe signal 1]
Signal 2 (suggests action B): [Describe signal 2 that contradicts signal 1]

Context:
[Relevant background]

Help me:
1. What could explain both signals being true simultaneously?
2. Which signal is more reliable given the source and sample size?
3. Which audience segment is each signal coming from?
4. What action makes sense given this contradiction?

Make this analysis suitable for explaining to stakeholders who disagree on interpretation.

Variation 2: Emerging trend

I'm seeing an emerging trend in monitoring that doesn't match our current positioning. Help me assess whether we should enter this conversation or stay focused on our existing narrative.

The trend: [Describe what's emerging in conversation]
Where it's visible: [Channels, audience segments]
Growth rate: [How fast it's growing]
Current position: [What we're saying on this topic, if anything]

Key question: Should we:
- Adopt this as a messaging priority (it's where the conversation is)
- Acknowledge it but stay focused on our core (we mention it but don't lead on it)
- Ignore it (not our priority, let it pass)

Help me weigh these options against our business priorities and brand positioning.

Variation 3: Audience-specific insight

Different audience segments are sending different messages. Help me decide whether to tailor our approach or maintain one core message.

Audience 1 [e.g., Customers]: [What they're saying they need/value]
Audience 2 [e.g., Employees]: [What they're saying they need/value]
Audience 3 [e.g., Investors]: [What they're saying they need/value]

Current approach: [Whether we message all audiences the same way or differently]

Questions:
1. Are these audience needs actually contradictory, or just emphasising different aspects of a core truth?
2. If we need to segment messaging, how much variation can we sustain without brand confusion?
3. Which audience should be priority if we can't meet all needs equally?

Help me think through audience segmentation strategically.

Variation 4: Narrative shift decision

Our monitoring suggests we should shift how we're positioned on a key issue. This would mean changing a core narrative we've held. Help me think through whether this is the right move.

Current narrative: [What we've been saying]
Why we adopted it: [Original rationale]
Signal it needs to change: [What monitoring shows]
Proposed new narrative: [What we'd say instead]

Concerns:
[What worries us about making this change—credibility, consistency, stakeholder confusion, etc.]

Help me assess:
1. Is the evidence strong enough to justify a narrative shift?
2. How do we communicate this change without undermining credibility?
3. What stakeholders does this help and which does it risk alienating?
4. Is there a middle path that evolves the narrative without fully reversing it?

Help me make this decision defensible.

Variation 5: Defend current approach

Some monitoring data suggests we should change our current approach, but I think we might be misreading it or over-responding. Help me build a case for standing firm.

The pressure to change: [What monitoring suggests]
Our current approach: [What we're doing]
Why I think we should stick with it: [Your reasoning]

Help me:
1. What would need to be true for our current approach to actually be fine?
2. What specific data points would convince me we really need to change?
3. How do I communicate that we're staying the course without looking defensive?
4. What risks do we take by not changing, and are they acceptable?

Format this as a memo I could send to leadership explaining why we're not making a change despite pressure.

Human review checklist

Example output

Insight to Action Analysis

Analysis completed: 28 January 2026 Completed by: Comms strategy team Related insight from: Weekly monitoring brief #4 (jan 20–27)

The insight

What we discovered: Customers consistently cite “ease of implementation” as the primary value driver when discussing our software, but our marketing emphasises features and capability. There’s a messaging gap.

Evidence supporting this:

Customer interviews (12 over Jan–Feb): 11 spontaneously mentioned “easy to set up/use” as purchase driver; none proactively mentioned advanced features
Social listening: Customer testimonial posts (45 total) emphasised implementation simplicity 73% of the time, features 27%
Sales team feedback: Top 3 objections from lost deals were time-to-value concerns, not feature gaps
Job-to-be-done research: Customers primarily buying to “reduce internal complexity”, not “unlock advanced capabilities”

Stakeholder group most affected: Midmarket customers (SMEs, 50–500 person companies) who don’t have dedicated technical teams. This is our fastest-growing segment.

How strong is this signal: Strong. Consistent across qualitative (interviews, testimonials), quantitative (social listening), and sales pipeline data. Clear pattern, large sample, multiple sources.

Current state vs desired state

What we’re currently saying: “[Product] offers powerful, advanced capabilities to transform your business.”

Who we’re saying it to: Enterprise buyers and technical decision-makers (our original positioning)

How it’s landing: Well with enterprise (that audience values “powerful”), but SME customers don’t respond to capability-focused messaging. When SMEs evaluate us, they’re asking “Can we actually implement this with our team?” not “How powerful is it?”

Gap: We’re leading with features for an audience that cares primarily about simplicity. Our strongest value proposition (ease of implementation) is buried in case studies, not highlighted in core messaging.

Root cause analysis

Why isn’t the current approach working?

Original positioning locked in enterprise context: We built positioning when targeting large organisations with dedicated technical resources. Messaging still reflects that
Audience changed faster than messaging: SME adoption grew (now 40% of pipeline) but we didn’t update positioning to reflect what this segment actually values
Assumption mismatch: We assumed customers would prioritise capability over simplicity; they’re actually optimising for implementation speed

Is this about the message or the messenger? The message. Our sales teams are already saying “easy implementation” to SMEs (and closing deals), but marketing is still saying “powerful features”. Channel/source aren’t the issue; words are.

Could we be misreading this data? Unlikely. The pattern is too consistent. The only scenario where we wouldn’t need to act is if SME segment growth was temporary (unlikely, given market trends) or if “powerful” messaging was driving them anyway (contradicted by sales data on actual objections).

Action options

Option 1: Segment the messaging

What we’d say instead:
- To SMEs: “Implement in weeks, not months. Get started with your team, no experts needed.”
- To Enterprise: Keep current “powerful capabilities” positioning
To which audience: SME segment gets implementation-focused messaging; enterprise gets capability-focused
Via which channels: Website segmentation by company size; sales messaging by persona; content tailored per segment
Risk: Brand consistency—messaging two things simultaneously could confuse market. Additional marketing workload.
Resource required: 3 weeks to develop segmented messaging, 2 weeks to implement website changes, ongoing content adjustment

Option 2: Unified positioning shift

What we’d say instead: Lead with “Transform your business at your pace, no expertise required” (emphasises both transformation AND implementation simplicity)
To which audience: All segments, but messaging emphasises different benefits per channel
Via which channels: Website homepage, campaign messaging, brand positioning documents
Risk: Enterprise segment might feel we’re “dumbing down” the value prop. Need careful messaging to maintain capability credibility.
Resource required: 2 weeks to develop unified new positioning, 3 weeks to implement across all channels

Option 3: Evolve, don’t replace

What we’d say instead: Keep “powerful capabilities” but explicitly add “accessible to any team” to the core narrative
To which audience: All segments
Via which channels: Update all marketing materials to include both capability + accessibility in core messaging
Risk: Messaging becomes wordy; doesn’t fully address that SMEs don’t care about “power” as selling point
Resource required: 1 week to adjust copy across all channels

Option 4: Do nothing; defend current approach

Rationale: Our enterprise positioning is still strong; SME growth is happening despite messaging because sales teams are compensating. Our brand shouldn’t be entirely defined by fastest-growing segment.
Conditions we’d monitor: If SME segment stops growing or win rates decline there, revisit. If enterprise continues strong, current positioning is fine.
Timeline to reassess: 6 months (revisit in Q2)
Risk: We leave money on the table in fastest-growing segment. Competitors targeting SMEs with “easy implementation” messaging could take share.
Resource required: Minimal (just monitoring pipeline metrics quarterly)

Recommended action

Best option: Option 1 (Segment the messaging) — Because:

Maximises value for highest-growth segment without undermining strong enterprise positioning
Sales teams are already segmenting by customer type; messaging should match what’s working
Requires moderate investment with lower risk than wholesale positioning change
Allows us to test SME messaging impact separately

Specific change we’ll make:

Develop SME-focused messaging emphasising “implementation simplicity, no experts needed”
Create segmented website experience: SME path shows implementation stories, timeline, learning resources; Enterprise path shows capability, compliance, scale
Update sales collateral to include both messaging paths (enable sales to choose based on customer profile)
Adjust content calendar: add 3 SME-focused case studies showing quick implementation (vs current case studies focused on enterprise scale)

Who needs to approve/know:

CEO (brand positioning approval) — by 2 Feb
Product team (ensure messaging matches actual product positioning) — by 2 Feb
Sales leadership (brief on segmented messaging approach) — by 5 Feb

Timeline:

Approval needed by: 2 February 2026
Messaging development: 3–9 February
Website updates: 10–20 February
Sales collateral updated: 15–20 February
Full implementation: 1 March

Success measures:

We’ll know this worked if: SME win rate increases by 15%+ within 60 days of messaging change
Secondary measures: SME deal cycle shortens; average deal size for SMEs remains stable or grows
We’d know it failed if: Enterprise segment responds negatively OR SME segment doesn’t improve

Monitoring during implementation:

Weekly check: Website visitor engagement by segment; landing page conversion by persona
30-day review: Win rates and deal cycle by segment; sales team feedback on messaging utility
90-day review: Full pipeline analysis; whether SME messaging drove improvement

Stakeholder alignment

Who supports this action:

Sales team: “This is what we’re already saying to SMEs; glad it’s becoming official”
Product team: “This positioning is accurate; we’ve designed for implementation simplicity”

Who might resist:

Enterprise sales: “Are we diluting our positioning?” (concern: we’re moving away from powerful/capability messaging)
Executive team: “Does segmentation risk brand consistency?” (concern: two different messages = confused brand)

How we’ll address resistance:

To Enterprise sales: Present data showing their segment unaffected; reassure them capability messaging remains strong for that customer profile
To Executive: Frame as “intelligent segmentation” (same brand, different emphasis per audience) not “contradictory positioning”. Airlines do this (safety-focused for families, time-focused for business). Same value prop, different language per customer needs.

Communication plan for the change

If we’re changing the message, who needs to know first (in priority order):

Sales leadership (briefing 5 Feb): “Here’s the data on what’s working with SMEs; here’s the new messaging; here’s how to use it”
Enterprise customers (proactive outreach 1 March): “We’re evolving our positioning to serve growing SME market; your enterprise positioning remains unchanged”
Marketing and content teams (workshop 3 Feb): “Here’s the new messaging framework; here’s how to apply it per channel; here are the resources”
Market (website change 1 March): Segmented experience goes live; SME messaging visible to that audience segment

Messaging to explain the change (if needed): We’re not explicitly announcing a “change.” Instead, we’re surfacing a messaging variant that was already implicit. Sales teams can say: “We’ve updated our website to make it easier for teams like yours to see how implementation works. Check out the new implementation journey section.”

Channels and timing:

Internal communication (sales briefing): 5 February via Zoom
Stakeholder briefing (enterprise accounts): 28 February via direct outreach
Public-facing change (website): 1 March (goes live)

Weekly Monitoring Brief – Where these insights typically surface
Messaging Strategy Framework – Use for deeper positioning work if insight suggests broader strategy shift
Stakeholder Audience Segmentation – Deepen understanding of audience needs before finalising actions
Campaign Planning Template – Implement messaging changes through structured campaign approach
Comms Dashboard – Track whether action is actually working post-implementation

Tips for success

Separate insight from action Finding an insight and knowing what to do about it are different skills. Spending 15 minutes on “what does this data mean?” before jumping to “here’s what we’ll do” prevents reactive decisions. Let the insight settle before recommending action.

Quantify where possible; qualify where you must “Customers mention simplicity” is weaker than “73% of customer testimonials mention simplicity.” But “I felt the messaging wasn’t landing” without evidence isn’t useful at all. Use numbers where available; use representative quotes where you don’t have numbers. Avoid pure intuition.

Test the insight against your strategy An insight might be true without justifying action. “Younger customers prefer Gen-Z language” might be true, but if your brand isn’t trying to reach Gen-Z, it’s interesting data but not actionable. Ask: “Does this align with our strategic goals, or is it a distraction?”

Consider what’s not being said If 73% of testimonials mention simplicity, what about the other 27%? Are they mentioning something else valuable, or just not mentioning simplicity? Silence is data too. Ask what you’d expect to see if your positioning were working and compare to what you actually see.

Build in a reassessment point Don’t commit to an action forever based on one month’s data. “We’ll evaluate in 60 days” prevents both “sticking with a failed action” and “constantly chasing every data point.” Build in a check-in when you commit to an action.

Common pitfalls

Optimism bias in interpreting insights If an insight supports something you wanted to do anyway, it’s easy to overweight it. Unconsciously, you might interpret ambiguous data as stronger than it is. Use explicit criteria: “Does this insight meet our bar for strength?” before acting.

Treating anecdotes as patterns One frustrated customer saying “your message isn’t clear” is data. Forty customers saying it across multiple research methods is a pattern. One doesn’t justify a messaging change; forty does. Count before concluding.

Ignoring the cost of action A real insight might not justify action if the cost to act is high. “Customers want weekly personalised emails” might be true, but if it requires 200 hours of work and your marketing team is already over-capacity, it’s not actionable now. Action recommendations need resource reality-check.

Assuming insights apply equally across segments “Customers want simplicity” might be true for SMEs and false for enterprise. “Investors want growth messaging” might be false for ESG investors. Segment before generalising. An insight that’s true for 30% of your audience isn’t universal.

Over-rotating on latest data Monitoring data is current but not necessarily representative. One week’s sentiment shift doesn’t mean your positioning changed; it might mean one influencer commented. Track trends over time, not individual data points. If you shifted strategy every week, you’d have no strategy.

Insights to Actions Template

What it is

When to use it

Inputs needed

The template

Insight to Action Analysis

The insight

Current state vs desired state

Root cause analysis

Action options

Recommended action

Stakeholder alignment

Communication plan for the change

AI prompt

Base prompt

Prompt variations

Human review checklist

Example output

The insight

Current state vs desired state

Root cause analysis

Action options

Recommended action

Stakeholder alignment

Communication plan for the change

Tips for success

Common pitfalls

Related templates

Issue Log Tracker

Weekly Monitoring Brief

Need this implemented in your organisation?