When Walter Lindenmann retires from Ketchum early next year, he'll know his efforts for the past couple decades have helped make measurement the priority it is throughout the PR community. But he'll also know there is still work to be done to motivate PR execs to measure the impact of their campaigns and programs. Enjoying semi-retirement, he chatted with PR NEWS about where the industry is now with regard to measurement and where it should be.
PRN: What percentage of communications budgets should be allocated to research?
WL:
More and more companies are allocating anywhere from five to 10 percent of their budgets for measurement and evaluation. We [Ketchum] did a survey about 10 years ago and we found at that time that people were devoting about three percent. I suspect now it's closer to five or six percent. But the ideal is 10 percent.
PRN: Most companies - especially small ones - aren't able to cough up 10 percent. Is it possible to do anything with less?
WL:
There's obviously a limit to what you can do. Only the elementary measurement tools and techniques can be used if you have a small budget.
PRN: Which measurement tools do you consider elementary?
WL:
The basic one of counting clips. Whenever we talk about PR measurement and evaluation, we focus on three stages of the process - outputs, outgrowths and outcomes. With outputs, what we're talking about is measuring how much exposure you get or how much presentation you get. That's where counting impressions comes in. When you get to the next phase, measuring outgrowths, you start measuring whether anyone receives the messages and pays attention to them, understands the messages and retains them. To start doing measurement in that area gets much more expensive.
Ultimately, in the big issue of measuring outcomes - as in did anybody change their opinions, attitudes or behavior patterns - it gets much more expensive. As you move up the hierarchy, both the research techniques that are used to collect the data, and the cost of doing the research go up.
PRN: Give some examples of what specific dollar amounts will get you in today's market.
WL:
Depending on the number of clips you're looking at for a content analysis, or even a simple public opinion poll on the output level, you can do anything in the $3,000 to $10,000 price range. Once you start measuring whether or not people are paying attention and receiving your messages, you're looking at $6,000 low end, up to $18,000. Of course, you can measure opinion and attitudes with a low budget. but the ideal way to [research] is through some sort of before-and-after study. Find out what people's views are today, then launch a program, then do follow-up research. But when you do before-and-after research, you almost have to double your budget because you're going into the field twice. That brings you up to $25,000 to $40,000 price range.
PRN: Which corporations are making the biggest strides in measurement?
WL:
The most sophisticated stuff is being done by Fortune 500 companies. GM and AT&T have done some terrific stuff. But of course, they've got lots of dollars to allocate. The dilemma facing the smaller organizations is, 'how can I begin to do something like that without breaking the piggy bank?'
PRN: How can they?
WL:
My philosophy has always been that you have to lay out the ideal model, even if you don't have the dollars for it. Consider the ideal design, then scale back, based on your real dollars and reach a compromise. You may say, well, to really measure the effectiveness of this, I need $85,000. Well that's ridiculous. I only have $20,000. So maybe you end up picking a smaller sample size, or maybe you postpone until next year when there are more funds.
PRN: If your budget gets slashed enough, you won't be able to get statistically valid data. How can communicators convince senior management that it's a worthwhile investment?
WL:
A lot depends on management. Managers who have MBAs are number-crunchers. They want hard numbers and won't accept anecdotal stuff. So they're more willing to spend the money.
PRN: Is the drive for measurement changing the kinds of qualifications communications people need to compete in the marketplace?
WL:
Definitely. They need to be much more numbers-oriented. The whole field is changing. We've got to start thinking more in PR as the management consultants think. More bottom line-oriented. More geared to the organization's overall commitments. The fact that we have to think like management consultants is both a good thing, and also a horrible thing. Because one of the strengths of PR over the years has been the ability of PR people to communicate - with journalists, for example - and you don't want to lose the relationship aspect of that. You're walking a funny little line here. You do want to be more numbers-oriented, but you don't want to lose the creativity, the spirit, the relationships that really have made the PR field what it is today.
PRN: What do CEOs think of PR right now? How much do they value it?
WL:
I did a survey about 15 years ago (in fact it would be interesting to replicate if somebody did it now) that involved interviews with CEOs and interviews with their top PR people to compare their points of view. What we found was that the CEO was much more attuned and sophisticated to the things that PR could ultimately do for the organization than a lot of PR people thought.
PRN: So are you saying PR was fighting self-esteem issues?
WL:
Well, yes, to a certain degree. What's interesting is that the CEO fully understood what PR really could do in the larger, more sophisticated organizations. I think a lot of times, we put the CEO down in that regard. A lot more of them recognize the value [of PR] than we give them credit for.
PRN: Do you think PR execs developed the notion that CEOs were ignorant as a way of justifying the fact that their budgets were being slashed?
WL:
I think the CEO [has always] understood the function and importance of PR. But I think in the past, in the view of the CEO, the PR person may not have measured up to the potential that was there. Because the PR person came out of journalism. I'm not putting journalism down, but as I said, CEOs are numbers-oriented. Too many CEOs viewed their PR officers as little more than press relations officers - as opposed to counselors in the strategic planning process called public relations.
(Lindenmann, 212/448-4411.)