Phishing campaigns explained for security leaders

Most organizations already run phishing campaigns, but most are measuring clicks, not risk. Worse, they're often built in isolation from how attackers actually operate. The result is campaigns that check boxes without changing outcomes.

Legacy simulations rarely reflect real-world tactics, and the data they generate is too shallow to inform meaningful security decisions. This article goes beyond templates and definitions to explore how modern phishing campaigns can, and should, reveal how employees behave under pressure, across channels, and over time.

The reality is modern campaigns require simulation realism and behavioral analytics that legacy tools weren't built for. So we'll cover how to design phishing programs that not only raise awareness but also measure human risk and guide better security investments.

What is a phishing campaign, and what is it supposed to tell you?

A phishing campaign is a simulated attack designed to test how people respond to phishing attempts, including emails, text messages, and other forms of social engineering techniques that mimic real attacker tactics.

But not all types of phishing campaigns are created equal. Some are compliance-driven: send an email, count who clicks, show a training module. These campaigns meet regulatory expectations but rarely provide actionable insight.

Others are risk-driven, designed to observe behavior, analyze patterns, and reveal the conditions under which employees are most vulnerable. These campaigns aren't just about whether someone clicks—they're about why they clicked, when, and what that means for the business.

A well-designed phishing campaign should answer questions like:

• Who has the most vulnerabilities?
• Under what conditions do mistakes happen?
• Which channels (like email, SMS, or collaboration tools) pose the highest risk?

In this light, phishing campaigns aren't just "awareness content"; they're part of your measurement infrastructure. When executed properly, they help security leaders understand human risk with the same rigor they apply to endpoint or network telemetry.

Why do traditional phishing campaigns fail to reduce risk?

Failure rates for phishing campaigns vary by industry, but the one commonality is that these campaigns often fall short of their ultimate goal: reducing real-world risk. The core issue is they're built on outdated assumptions about how cybercriminals operate and how people respond.

Here are the three most common reasons traditional campaigns miss the mark.

Treating phishing as an email-only problem

Today's phishing attacks are no longer confined to inboxes. Threat actors routinely exploit SMS (smishing), voice calls (vishing), credential phishing, and collaboration platforms like Slack, Microsoft Teams, or LinkedIn. These multi-channel threats often bypass traditional email spam filters and exploit human trust in less-scrutinized environments.

Yet, most phishing tests focus exclusively on email. By doing so, they ignore a growing slice of the threat surface and give organizations a false sense of readiness.

Effective campaigns must reflect the full spectrum of social engineering channels attackers use, not just the ones easiest to simulate.

Prioritizing templates over threat realism

Many phishing platforms offer libraries of pre-built templates. These are convenient, but often outdated, because real attackers, the effective ones, don't always use templates. They leverage open-source intelligence (OSINT) to craft personalized lures. They create a sense of urgency, authority, or fear, and adapt quickly, mimicking internal communication styles or referencing recent company events.

Static phishing templates rarely capture this nuance. They lack the actual phishing scam realism needed to trigger authentic behavior, and as a result, they fail to surface meaningful risk signals.

Modern simulations should evolve alongside attacker tactics, incorporating real-world cues and targeted scenarios that mimic how users are actually exploited.

Optimizing for scores, not behavior change

Too often, phishing campaigns are judged by a single metric: click rate. But human risk isn't about who passed or failed a one-off test; it's about how behavior changes over time and why certain individuals or teams are more prone to leaking sensitive data.

A shallow, score-based approach leads to misleading dashboards and missed opportunities for targeted intervention. Without understanding the "why" behind behavior, it's impossible to design effective training or adjust defenses accordingly. On average, phishing attacks cost companies around USD 4.88 million, so leadership can't afford poor training protocols.

Legacy tools weren't built to measure nuanced human behavior across channels. Platforms like Adaptive enable AI-powered simulations and behavioral analytics that close these gaps—turning surface-level scores into deeper, decision-grade insight.

Modern phishing campaigns reflect the real threat landscape

Attackers have evolved, and your phishing simulations should, too. The most effective phishing campaigns now mirror attacker workflows, incorporating emerging tactics and tools to accurately simulate how modern breaches begin.

If your simulations don't reflect the tactics adversaries actually use, they won't generate the insights security teams need.

From mass email to targeted, multi-channel attacks

Mass phishing emails still happen, but attackers are increasingly adopting targeted and multi-channel tactics. It may look like an AI-crafted email from a fake CEO, followed by a voice call confirming an urgent wire transfer. Or, it could be a message sent via Teams or Slack, appearing to come from IT support, prompting password resets or VPN logins.

We've entered an era of executive impersonation, AI-written lures, and multi-channel pressure tactics. And phishing campaigns must adapt accordingly.

Effective simulations now require:

• Realistic persona-based attacks (e.g., targeting finance with invoice fraud)
• Follow-ups across SMS or voice to simulate layered social engineering
• Dynamic scenarios that evolve with attacker tradecraft
• Lures that convince users to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA)

Without these elements, simulations can't reliably expose the human attack paths that real threats exploit.

Why behavioral context matters more than technical cues

Legacy phishing training taught people to "look for the red flags." But in real attacks, technical cues are often minimal or intentionally hidden. Phishing success hinges more on contextual and emotional factors: urgency, authority, timing, or the user's current workload.

The best attackers don't trigger suspicion—they trigger real-time, instinctive compliance. That's why modern simulations must test human judgment, not just inbox awareness. You need to know why something happened. Questions like:

• Would this user question a request from an executive?
• How do they respond to stress, time pressure, or ambiguity?
• Are they more vulnerable on mobile vs desktop?

What should phishing campaign results tell security leaders?

The purpose of a phishing campaign isn't to simply generate a report. It's to surface real, actionable insights about human risk. When designed strategically, these campaigns become a diagnostic tool for security leaders, helping them make smarter investments and influence culture from the top down.

Identifying high-risk roles, not just high-risk users

Click rates alone don't tell the full story. What matters more is who is vulnerable and why.

Modern security teams should focus on high-risk roles like:

• Finance and accounts payable
• HR and recruitment
• Executive assistants
• IT and help desk personnel

These roles have elevated exposure to sensitive systems and financial approvals. Phishing campaigns should surface role-based risk trends, helping security leaders tailor controls and training without resorting to individual blame.

Turning results into actionable risk insights

Campaign results should do more than populate dashboards. They should guide decisions on:

1. Where to invest in targeted training or coaching
2. Whether to introduce approval workflows for high-risk transactions
3. Which departments need policy updates or additional oversight

Campaign results should also help CISOs tell the story at the executive and board level. A great phishing campaign produces metrics that translate into behavioral improvement trends and justification for budget and controls.

Phishing simulations aren't about "gotchas" or punishments. They're about prioritizing human risk as a measurable, manageable threat vector and equipping leaders with the data to do something about it.

How phishing campaigns fit into a broader human risk strategy

Phishing campaigns aren't the whole picture. They're one powerful signal in a larger human risk framework. Used correctly, phishing simulations integrate with:

• Security awareness training: Reinforcing learnings with real-world scenarios
• Incident response: Surfacing common failure patterns and response gaps
• Executive reporting: Providing measurable, relatable insights into the behavior of employees under pressure

The shift is from measuring training completion rates to tracking risk reduction over time. Combining phishing campaign insights with other behavioral data, policy acknowledgment, real incidents, and response metrics gives organizations a more complete view of their vulnerabilities and how to improve.

These campaigns are tools for observing behavior and designing interventions.

Running phishing campaigns that actually reduce risk

Phishing campaigns only reduce risk when they reflect reality. That means realistic attack scenarios, behavior-first measurement, and multi-channel coverage that mirrors how modern adversaries operate.

Click rates alone don't capture human risk. Static email templates don't surface real decision-making under pressure. And single-point-in-time tests don't show whether behavior is improving.

For security leaders, the takeaway is clear: it's time to reassess not just whether you run phishing campaigns, but what they actually measure and what decisions those metrics support.

If your campaigns aren't informing training priorities, policy changes, or executive-level risk conversations, they're not doing their job.

Modern threats exploit behavior, not just systems. Adaptive helps you evaluate risk through realistic, AI-powered attack simulations that reveal how people actually respond. Get a demo to see Adaptive in action.

FAQs about phishing campaigns

Why are phishing campaigns important?

Phishing campaigns help organizations understand how employees respond to social engineering cyber attacks—the most common entry point for breaches. When designed correctly, they reveal human risk patterns, identify vulnerable roles, and guide targeted improvements in training, policy, and controls. They're not just awareness tools; they're a critical measurement layer in modern security programs.

How often should organizations run phishing campaigns?

Most organizations run phishing campaigns monthly or quarterly, but frequency should align with risk. High-risk teams or roles may benefit from more frequent, targeted simulations. What matters most isn't cadence alone—it's whether results are tracked over time to measure behavioral improvement and reduced exposure, not just one-off performance.

Are phishing campaigns still effective against AI-powered attacks?

Yes, but only if the simulations evolve. AI has made phishing more personalized and believable. Traditional template-based campaigns fall short.

Platforms like Adaptive simulate AI-driven, multi-channel attacks that mirror modern adversaries, so security teams can test real-world behavior and stay ahead of rapidly evolving threat tactics and scams.