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?