How to Measure PR Effectiveness: The Debate Continues

How should PR be measured? How do PR agencies provide evidence of ROI to clients? Some of PR's big thinkers from around the world debated the issue this summer and came up with....a box of nothing.

PRSA and several other PR and communications organizations met at a PR measurement summit in Barcelona and produced "The Barcelona Declaration of Research Principles." Far from being a stunning scholarly work, these basic principles are blindingly obvious, for the most part. And they don't tell us anything new.

PR agencies and in-house operations are constantly being challenged to produce results that look good to corporate financial types. Well, PR isn't exact. And it's not science.

Here are the seven principles with my comments:

1. Goal setting and measurement are fundamental aspects of any PR programs. True. Most of the time our clients ask us what can be expected as the result of a program, and they should. We should have goals to reach.

2. Media measurement requires quantity and quality. Again, pretty obvious, although not exactly true. Sometimes, in a niche market, you don't have lots of media out there. Two or three great articles can get you where you want to go.

3. Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs) do not measure the value of PR and do not inform future activity. I agree with this one. Measuring PR results against ad values is a ridiculous comparison. Ads provide the exact message the client wants to convey, where and when the client wants it conveyed. We don't have that option in PR and are subject to the availability of the media and the timeliness and newsworthiness of the pitch.

4. Social media can and should be measured. Yes, it can, if you have lots of billable hours, or a big budget so you can hire the big measurement firms to do it for you.

5. Measuring outcomes is preferred to measuring media results. Not sure what the distinction is here.

6. Business results can and should be measured where possible. If PR is being measured against sales, no! No matter how good the PR is, we can't produce an uptick in sales if: 1. The product doesn't fill a consumer need 2. The consumer can't get it easily 3. The consumer has a poor purchase/customer service experience 4. The consumer feels the product is of poor quality 5. The budget doesn't allow PR to reach the audience numbers/demographics

7. Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement. Uh huh. Buzzwords.

In the real world, we don't have absolutes. As PR professionals, we seek to inform the public about our clients' products and services and create positive public perceptions. We can't sell the product for our clients, but we can put them in the mood to buy. And while I don't always agree with Jack O'Dwyer, his blog post on Barcelona (until some rants at the end) was practical and to the point. He says that the "Barcelona Principles" position PR as marketing when "that's only one aspect of PR." He's right.

I'm not sure why PRSA and other organizations feel constantly compelled to justify the need for PR. Enlightened clients know it's important. Media people, although they complain, know it's important. PR, badly beaten down of late, needs a shot of self-esteem, but this sort of "summit" isn't helping. What do you think?

Comments

[Toni Antonetti]

Thanks so much for the comments, Keith. I do want to make an important distinction. As much as I would like to evaluate PR program results -- we used to do pre and post-surveys when I was at Burson-Marsteller --as a small agency, our clients don't have the budget for this kind of measurement. It's also a function of the way PR accounts are now. We often work project by project and there's no overall focus, plan or long term strategy. Many clients are looking for quick "hits" and therefore fall back on AVEs to report on results to the executive suite. So perhaps we're in agreement -- it's just that results measurement is not always possible given the tactical nature of PR today.

[Keith Trivitt]

Thanks for shedding some always-needed additional light, Toni, on the subject of clearly displaying the strategic value of public relations. While I understand the overall point you're trying to make that PR has clearly already proven its value within its own community, the real issue here isn't trying to demonstrate value to PR, marketing or advertising professionals anymore. What is at stake is much, much larger: demonstrating clear value to a broader business community that often views any additional expenditure with a skeptical view.

KD and others in the comments are precisely right: until EVERY potential and current client moves past the belief that the only way to measure our results and value is through AVEs, then we will always need to do more to advocate and educate on how to truly measure PR's success.

One point that I think clearly illustrates this need is your comment regarding point No. 5 of the Barcelona Principles: "Measuring outcomes is preferred to measuring media results. Not sure what the distinction is here."

The distinction that needs to be made here, and what really gets at the heart for better educating the broader business community about the value, and proper measurement, of public relations, is that media results (what most would call "hits" or impressions) means little in the long-term. The true value of media relations (and, by extension, of public relations), comes from the outcomes of those media results. Does it improve brand or exec reputation? Does it build brand affinity? Does it HELP to move market share in some meaningful way?

If we can't demonstrate and help others understand the value of that (and, as you note, clearly measuring these types of movements can be difficult sometimes), then we're just spinning our wheels when it comes to helping the business community understand PR's true value.

Obviously, this is something at PRSA that we're actively involved in, as you note in your post. I'd invite you, and others, to take a closer look at some of the work PRSA has been doing to help the business community better understand the value of PR with PRSA's "Business Case for Public Relations." http://ht.ly/2YTbV

Keith Trivitt | Associate Director of Public Relations | Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) | http://www.prsa.org/

[Toni Antonetti]

Thanks for the comment, Tim -- I am checking out www.iprmeasure.org right now. Lots of great information!

[Tim Marklein]

Interesting post, Toni. I would suggest you and your readers also check out the follow-on work we outlined at the Institute for PR Measurement Summit earlier this month -- www.iprmeasure.org. The Barcelona Principles were the first step to establish a core set of global PR standards -- most of which are obvious to us who live this every day -- but they have proven to be an essential foundation for moving the PR industry's measurement discussion forward. At minimum, they counter the myths that "PR can't be measured" or "we can't do it because there are no standards."

In short, there are plenty of standards and best practices out there, many of which don't cost much. And while we have explicitly addressed the connection to business results for the majority of clients who focus there, we have also outlined key metrics that apply to non-sales goals -- including reputation programs, issues management, community building, etc.

[Toni Antonetti]

I know. It is too bad that companies feel compelled to justify PR by proving that it boosts sales. There are so many variables in the mix to prove that, I think. I wish there was a measurement standard and system that was affordable and accepted by clients across the board.

[KDPaine]

I wish that that we didn't need things like the Barcelona Prinicples, but given that I speak at a conference a week, and at least 2 people at each one tell me that their boss or someone insists on AVEs and insists on typing PR to sales SOMEHOW.. it is appalling how much they are still needed.