Quarterly Comms Review
A structured end-of-quarter review of the whole communications programme — across all channels, campaigns, and activity — that evaluates performance, extracts learning, and sets priorities for the next quarter.
What it is
The Quarterly Comms Review is the full-programme evaluation that sits above individual campaign reviews. Where the Campaign Performance Review asks “how did this campaign do?”, the Quarterly Review asks “how did communications perform overall, and are we building the right capability and momentum?”
It covers everything: owned channels, earned media, internal communications, campaign activity, always-on output, team performance, and how all of it connected to what the organisation was trying to achieve this quarter. It is both a backward look (what happened and why) and a forward-facing document (what does this mean for next quarter’s priorities).
Critically, it asks not just about outputs (did we publish everything we planned?) but about outcomes (did our communications achieve anything that mattered?). That distinction — between communications activity and communications impact — is where most teams have the most room to improve.
This review also serves as the primary mechanism for feeding Monitor insights back into Strategise. The five-phase OS is a cycle, and this template is the join.
When to use it
Use this template when:
- You’re at the end of a quarter and need to account for communications performance
- You’re presenting to leadership, a board, or clients on what communications delivered
- You’re preparing for the next quarter’s planning cycle and need a structured evidence base
- You want to identify whether the team’s priorities and activity were actually aligned with business need
- You’re making the case for resource, budget, or capability investment
Don’t use this template when:
- You’re reviewing a single campaign (use the Campaign Performance Review)
- You need a monthly stakeholder update (use the Monthly Stakeholder Update)
- You’re mid-quarter and want to course-correct (use Insights to Actions Template)
- You haven’t set objectives at the start of the quarter (without them, a performance review lacks rigour — set them before the next quarter begins)
Inputs needed
Before completing this review, gather:
- Original quarterly objectives and KPIs (from your planning documents)
- Channel analytics exports for the full quarter (all active channels)
- Media monitoring summary for the quarter
- Campaign performance data (ideally already captured in Campaign Performance Reviews)
- Internal communications output and any available response data
- Budget and resource spend actuals
- Any qualitative signals: stakeholder feedback, team observations, customer input
- Competitive context from the Competitive Intelligence Monitor
The template
Quarterly Comms Review
Quarter: [Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4] [Year] Period: [Start date] to [End date] Prepared by: [Name] Distribution: [Leadership / Board / Client / Team] Date prepared: [Date]
Quarter in one paragraph
[3–5 sentences. What was the overall picture this quarter? What were the defining themes — the campaigns that worked, the challenges faced, the external context that shaped activity? Write this last but present it first.]
Objectives vs. delivery
For each objective set at the start of the quarter, assess what was achieved:
| Objective | Success measure / KPI | Target | Actual | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exceeded / Met / Partially met / Not met | ||||
Objectives fully met: [#] of [total #]
Overall assessment:
- Quarter delivered on all primary communications objectives
- Quarter delivered on most objectives with some gaps
- Quarter was mixed — some significant achievements alongside material shortfalls
- Quarter did not deliver against primary objectives
Primary reason for any shortfall: [If objectives were missed: what was the main reason? Resource, strategy, external factors, execution?]
Channel performance summary
| Channel | Primary KPI | Q target | Q actual | vs. Q-1 | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owned social (LinkedIn) | ↑/→/↓ | ||||
| Owned social (other) | ↑/→/↓ | ||||
| Email / newsletter | ↑/→/↓ | ||||
| Website / content | ↑/→/↓ | ||||
| Earned media | ↑/→/↓ | ||||
| Internal channels | ↑/→/↓ | ||||
| Events / speaking | ↑/→/↓ |
Strongest channel this quarter: [Channel] — because: [specific reason]
Channel requiring most attention next quarter: [Channel] — because: [specific reason]
Campaign performance summary
| Campaign | Objective | Outcome | Key learning |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Campaign 1] | On target / Below / Above | ||
| [Campaign 2] | |||
| [Campaign 3] |
Best-performing campaign: [Name] — Key factor: [What made it work]
Lowest-performing campaign: [Name] — Key factor: [What held it back]
Always-on performance
This section covers ongoing communications activity that isn’t tied to specific campaigns.
| Activity | Volume (Q actual vs. Q plan) | Quality / engagement | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regular content publishing | Strong / On track / Below par | ||
| Media relations | |||
| Internal communications | |||
| Stakeholder engagement | |||
| Executive/spokesperson activity |
Always-on rhythm assessment: [Was the team able to sustain consistent output? Were there gaps? What affected continuity?]
External environment
How did the external context affect performance this quarter?
| Factor | Impact on comms | Positive / Negative / Neutral |
|---|---|---|
| [Media/sector story 1] | ||
| [Competitive activity] | ||
| [Industry event or moment] | ||
| [Regulatory or policy development] |
Summary: [Did external factors help or hinder communications this quarter overall? What was the biggest unexpected variable?]
Audience and perception indicators
What did monitoring tell us about how audiences perceive the organisation this quarter?
| Indicator | Q assessment | Change from Q-1 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall sentiment | Positive / Mixed / Negative | Improving / Stable / Declining |
| Media share of voice | [%] | ↑/→/↓ |
| Key message pickup rate | High / Medium / Low | |
| Audience engagement quality | High / Medium / Low | |
| Stakeholder feedback signals | Positive / Mixed / Negative |
Most significant audience insight this quarter: [One finding from monitoring that should directly influence next quarter’s approach]
Resource and capacity
| Resource area | Q plan | Q actual | Variance | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Budget spend | ||||
| Team capacity (available vs. actual) | ||||
| External agency / freelance |
Resource constraints that affected delivery: [Were there capacity, budget, or skills gaps that limited what could be achieved?]
Efficiency wins: [Where did the team do more with the same or fewer resources? What worked better than expected?]
What worked — preserve and build
List the three to five things that most contributed to strong performance this quarter. Focus on what’s replicable, not just what happened.
| What worked | Why it worked | Apply next quarter? |
|---|---|---|
| Yes / Adapt / Test further | ||
What didn’t work — learn and adjust
List the three to five things that underperformed, caused friction, or consumed resource without sufficient return.
| What didn’t work | Root cause | Change next quarter? |
|---|---|---|
| Yes / Remove / Investigate | ||
Priorities for next quarter
Based on this review, what should be the communications priorities for next quarter? List in order of importance.
| Priority | Rationale (what this quarter showed) | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | ||
| 2. | ||
| 3. | ||
| 4. | ||
| 5. |
One thing to stop: [What activity or approach should be retired? Be specific.]
One thing to start: [What new activity or approach would the evidence from this quarter support? Be specific.]
One thing to do more of: [What was underinvested relative to its performance? Where should more resource or attention go?]
Executive summary for leadership
Prepare this last. Maximum 200 words. This is what gets presented; everything above is what supports it.
[Organisation] communications in [Quarter/Year]: [1–2 sentence overall assessment].
Against our primary objectives, [summary of objectives met/missed]. The strongest performance was in [area], driven by [key factor]. The most significant gap was in [area], primarily because [cause].
External conditions [helped / hindered / were mixed] this quarter — particularly [one key factor].
Heading into [next quarter], our three priorities are: [Priority 1], [Priority 2], and [Priority 3]. We recommend [key change or investment] based on this quarter’s evidence.
AI prompt
Base prompt
I need to produce a quarterly communications review that honestly evaluates what the team delivered and sets clear priorities for next quarter.
Organisation: [NAME AND SECTOR]
Quarter: [Q AND YEAR]
Objectives we set at the start of the quarter:
[LIST OBJECTIVES AND KPIS]
Performance data:
[PASTE: channel analytics, campaign results, media monitoring summary, any other performance data]
Key context — what happened this quarter:
[DESCRIBE: major campaigns, announcements, challenges, external factors]
Resource context:
[BRIEF NOTE ON TEAM SIZE, BUDGET, ANY SIGNIFICANT CONSTRAINTS]
Please help me:
1. Honestly assess performance against each objective — what was met, what wasn't, and the most likely reasons
2. Identify the 2–3 most important patterns in the data (what the quarter reveals about what's working or not working)
3. Draft the "what worked / what didn't" sections with enough specificity to be useful
4. Recommend clear priorities for next quarter based on the evidence, not just general good practice
5. Draft a 150-word executive summary suitable for presenting to leadership
Be direct. This is an internal analysis, not a press release. Honest diagnosis is more valuable than a flattering account.Prompt variations
Variation 1: Board or leadership presentation summary
I need to present our Q[X] communications performance to the board / senior leadership team. They'll have 10 minutes for this.
Here's the full-quarter data:
[PASTE KEY DATA POINTS]
Our objectives were: [LIST]
What we achieved: [SUMMARISE]
What we missed: [SUMMARISE]
Key context: [DESCRIBE]
Please draft a 3–5 slide talking points document (not a deck, just the narrative) covering:
1. One-sentence summary of the quarter
2. Two or three achievements with supporting evidence
3. One significant gap and what we're doing about it
4. Two priorities for next quarter with clear rationale
Tone should be confident and direct — own the gaps, don't minimise them. Senior leaders lose trust in communications teams that only report good news.Variation 2: Year-end annual review
I'm preparing the annual communications review, drawing together four quarters of data.
Q1 highlights and performance: [SUMMARY]
Q2 highlights and performance: [SUMMARY]
Q3 highlights and performance: [SUMMARY]
Q4 highlights and performance: [SUMMARY]
Business objectives for the year: [LIST]
Business outcomes achieved: [LIST]
Please:
1. Identify the 3 most significant communications achievements of the year
2. Identify the 2 areas where performance was consistently below potential
3. Describe how communications contributed to business objectives — connect the dots explicitly
4. Set out 3 strategic priorities for the communications programme next year, grounded in this year's evidence
5. Draft a 250-word annual summary I can include in a board report
Write for a senior leadership audience who value substance over spin.Variation 3: Team retrospective facilitation
I'm facilitating a team retrospective at the end of Q[X]. I want to use performance data to structure the conversation, not just run a feelings-based debrief.
Quarter data summary:
[PASTE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY]
What went well: [TEAM'S INITIAL VIEWS]
What could have been better: [TEAM'S INITIAL VIEWS]
Please help me:
1. Identify 5 discussion questions that would help the team probe beyond surface observations into root causes
2. Suggest a framework for prioritising which improvements to tackle first (not everything can change at once)
3. Draft a "team commitments for next quarter" format that captures specific, accountable changes rather than vague intentions
4. Recommend how to close the session — what the team should leave with in concrete terms
The goal is honest, action-oriented reflection — not a blame session, but not a celebration either.Variation 4: Client reporting
I'm preparing a quarterly communications review for a client. The data shows mixed results and I need to present it honestly without undermining confidence in the programme.
Client: [NAME]
Quarter: [PERIOD]
What went well: [SUMMARY]
What underperformed: [SUMMARY]
External factors: [DESCRIBE]
Please help me frame this review in a way that:
1. Acknowledges underperformance directly, with explanation (not excuse)
2. Distinguishes between factors within our control and external factors
3. Presents clear, specific recommendations — not defensive repositioning
4. Maintains credibility by being candid about what didn't work
5. Positions next quarter's plan as evidence-based, not optimistic
Draft a 300-word client narrative I can use to open the review meeting.Human review checklist
- Objectives were actually set: The objectives you’re reviewing are ones genuinely set at the start of the quarter, not retrofitted to match what happened
- Data covers the full quarter: You haven’t just pulled data from strong weeks or months; the reporting period is consistent
- Objectives vs. outputs distinction maintained: The review assesses outcomes (what changed, what was achieved), not just outputs (what was published)
- Underperformance honestly addressed: The “what didn’t work” section has equal rigour to “what worked” — no significant gaps are glossed over
- Root causes are genuine: Explanations for underperformance go beyond “the team was busy” or “external factors” to identify what specifically could be learned or changed
- Priorities are prioritised: The next-quarter priorities are ranked, not just listed — if everything is a priority, nothing is
- Resource reality included: The review acknowledges capacity and budget constraints rather than pretending they don’t exist
- Competitive context included: External environment section includes what competitors did, not just macro events
- Executive summary standalone: The summary makes sense without reading the full document
- Forward-looking: The review ends with clear direction, not just description of what happened
Example output
Quarterly Comms Review — Q1 2026 Organisation: Argent Infrastructure Group | Prepared by: Head of Communications
Quarter in one paragraph
Q1 2026 was a quarter of strong earned media performance and disappointing digital reach. The financing announcement in February generated the best media coverage in 18 months, with six tier-one pieces and clear message pickup. However, the LinkedIn programme underdelivered consistently against reach targets, driven by an algorithm shift in January that significantly reduced organic distribution for all content types. Internal communications performed well against employee engagement targets. Overall, objectives were partially met — 3 of 5 primary objectives achieved, with the digital shortfall the most material gap.
Objectives vs. delivery
| Objective | KPI | Target | Actual | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increase share of voice in infrastructure media | SoV % | 18% | 22% | Exceeded |
| Drive website traffic from content | Monthly sessions | 12,000 | 9,400 | Not met |
| Key message pickup in media | % articles reflecting 2+ messages | 65% | 71% | Met |
| Internal communications satisfaction | eNPS comms score | 68 | 72 | Exceeded |
| Executive LinkedIn programme | CEO post reach/month | 15k | 8.2k | Not met |
Priorities for Q2
- Rebuild LinkedIn reach strategy — organic distribution changes require paid amplification or audience-building rethink. Staying the course without adaptation is not an option.
- Capitalise on infrastructure narrative momentum — the February media coverage created an opportunity to reinforce our position in a sector where we’re gaining recognition; Q2 should accelerate this.
- Website content: convert traffic potential into sessions — content quality is good; distribution is the gap. Channel integration (email, LinkedIn, stakeholder sharing) needs improvement.
Related templates
- Quarterly Comms Planning Grid — The planning input this review should feed directly into
- Campaign Performance Review — Individual campaign reviews that feed into this quarterly summary
- Competitive Intelligence Monitor — Provides the competitive context section of this review
- Objectives & Measurement Framework — Ensures objectives were measurable at the outset
- Monthly Stakeholder Update — Monthly reports that this quarterly review draws together
- Insights to Actions Template — For acting on specific findings from this review
Tips for success
Start the review before the quarter ends The best quarterly reviews begin collecting data in week 11 of the quarter, not the week after it closes. By the time the quarter ends, memories of what happened in month one are fading, and key team members may have moved on. Build a discipline of gathering evidence throughout the quarter, not just at the end.
Connect activity to business objectives, not just communications KPIs The most persuasive communications reviews show business impact, not just communications performance. “We published 48 posts this quarter” is an output. “Our LinkedIn programme generated 12 qualified enquiries that converted to three new client conversations” is an outcome. Work backwards from what the business is trying to achieve and connect communications activity to those goals.
Calibrate comparison carefully Comparing Q1 to Q4 of the previous year may not be fair (different seasonal patterns, different spend levels, different activity). Compare like-for-like where possible: same quarter last year, or an agreed baseline. State explicitly what you’re comparing to so reviewers understand the context.
Give the “what didn’t work” section the same rigour as “what worked” The instinct in any performance review is to spend more time on achievements than failures. Resist it. The learning value is disproportionately in what didn’t work. A team that thoroughly diagnoses its failures is improving; a team that thoroughly catalogues its successes may not be.
Make the priorities actionable “Improve social media performance” is not a priority. “Shift LinkedIn strategy from organic reach to audience-building through 1:1 engagement, with a 90-day test target of +15% follower growth” is a priority. The quarterly review should leave the team with absolute clarity on what changes next.
Common pitfalls
Reporting on activity instead of performance “We published 24 blog posts” is not a performance metric. What happened as a result of those posts? Did they generate traffic, enquiries, coverage, stakeholder engagement? Activity reporting feels safe but provides no insight into whether the communications programme is working.
Post-hoc objective setting It’s tempting, when objectives weren’t fully met, to reframe the objectives so they appear met. “We didn’t hit our media targets but we got great social engagement, so actually…” This undermines the integrity of the review and makes future planning harder. Own the gaps, diagnose the causes, change the approach.
Treating external factors as catch-all excuses External factors genuinely affect communications performance. A major news story can make your announcement invisible; an industry crisis can generate unexpected attention. But external factors can also mask poor planning or weak execution. Distinguish between “this was genuinely outside our control” and “we could have planned for this better.”
No follow-through on last quarter’s recommendations If your Q3 review said “we need to fix our email programme” and your Q4 review says exactly the same thing, the review isn’t driving change. Start each review by assessing whether last quarter’s recommendations were implemented, and why or why not.
Team not involved A review produced by one person from analytics data misses the qualitative judgements that come from being in the work. The people running campaigns, managing media relationships, and producing content have crucial insight into what the data doesn’t show. Build a brief team input stage into the review process.
Related templates
Need this implemented in your organisation?
Faur helps communications teams build frameworks, train teams, and embed consistent practices across channels.
Get in touch ↗