PR measurement has often been more sporadic and hybrid than it has been highly standardized.
But the Institute for Public Relations is hoping to bring clarity - even closure - to the need for uniform standards with the formation of a new Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation, drawing on representatives of four key sectors: corporate, agency, research and academia.
The commission, chaired by Walter Lindenmann, will seek to promote measurement standards and to counsel those within the industry on appropriate tools and techniques based on IPR guidelines, posted on its Web site, http://www.instituteforpr.com.
This week, we ask four members of the 15-member commission to identify the most pressing issue in PR today.
Corporate: Thomas Martin VP of Corporate Relations ITT Industries
Our challenge will be finding a more agreed-upon approach to measuring the effectiveness of PR. We have become used to systems which allow for many different proprietary approaches. For instance, each PR firm seems to have its own approach. But I'll contrast that with the approach that we've seen in the advertising arena, where there has been agreement on how to convey results.
In PR, however, we're not regularly going to management with similar terms and measures. At ITT Industries, for instance, we measure things like favorability and familiarity and we report on these on a periodic basis. What we've found is that as familiarity increases, so does favorability - determining the impression of a company by drawing a correlation among key targets (financial community, employees, customers, prospects, the media).
For another company, the semantics are probably different. But the partial barrier to PR being more persuasive is that we need to penetrate financial minds - people who come from engineering and financial backgrounds - who believe things need to be quantitative and that there should be some hard numbers and a way of saying: "spending X amount of money will lead to these results." Hopefully, we can come up with some universal terms/approaches that will provide PR pros the opportunity for some differentiation, but get them to agree that when it comes to measurement, there are certain boundaries. And eventually they'll say: "This is the way, without drastic deviation, we measure and report."
Research: John Gilfeather Managing Partner Yankelovich Partners
The biggest issue we're facing is for PR to take its place, something that can only be done through more accountability. Advertising, for instance, has developed measurements that are fairly accepted [by highers-up and external audiences], but we need to provide that same kind of accountability to the people who are paying the PR bills.
We did a study with Hill & Knowlton last year and we spoke with corporate communicators about reputation and found that only 39 percent (of the several hundred we talked to) report that their corporations benchmark reputation, which is the surrogate for your total communications. And strict measurement of results is only a fraction of that.
The PR industry has always said that what it does is soft, that it's goodwill in the bank and that certainly is correct, but just to an extent. We're all facing the day when the CEO says, "I've spent these dollars on PR - now, what's my return?" Measurement includes modeling press coverage against, and parallel to, survey research about the audiences being targeted and looking at outcomes (whether you've affected behavior), but it's also about the bottom line, those sales and profits.
Academia: Dr. James E. Grunig, Professor of PR University of Maryland
The first problem seems to be finding a means for disseminating this well developed body of knowledge to public relations practitioners. The Guidelines book published by the Institute did a good job of summarizing this body of knowledge in a brief, understandable fashion.
At the same time, I feel that there is a need to move forward to develop better methods of evaluation. At the first summit meeting, many participants pointed out that many practitioners do not know what their objectives are or what the value of PR is to an organization.
Academic researchers now are beginning to focus on relationships - between organizations and publics - as the overall objective of PR. This was the primary conclusion of the excellence project and the subject of a new book now in press edited by John Ledingham and Steve Bruning of Capital University in Columbus Ohio (to be published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). The second and third summit meetings began to work on the question of how to measure relationships. I have written a chapter in the Ledingham book (with Yi-Hui Huang) on the topic, as has Glen Broom, another member of the commission. In addition, Lauri Grunig and I wrote an insert for a trade publication in the Sept. 7, 1998, issue discussing the measurement of relationships. Linda Hon (a third member of the commission), Kitty Ward ( participant in the first summit), and I are working on a paper summarizing the work on relationships that the Institute may publish.
Agency: Linda Hadley Senior VP/Director of Research Porter/Novelli
The commission was created, of course, in response to increased demand for standards for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs. PR programs can and do have measurable impact on audience awareness, attitudes and behavior. We on the agency side also recognize our responsibility to demonstrate that impact. But certainly, as an industry, we must improve the strength of our commitment to investing in and using the tools needed to measure that impact - carrying this torch will be one of the most important functions of the commission.
We need to: first, build recognition of the need to tie PR programs more closely to the business objectives of our clients - because when we do not, evaluating their success becomes a game of Russian roulette; second, build our skills in setting program objectives that are clear and measurable and that identify the best role for PR in achieving business or organizational objectives, and third, increase the level of research insight that is applied to the planning and objective-setting steps of the PR process. (IPRM 352/392-0280)
How to Maximize Your Research Efforts
Since research and measurement often go hand in hand, we offer these guidelines for managing the research process:
Don't reinvent the wheel: You don't always have to embark on a new study course. The research you want may already have been done. All you need to do is a literature search and secondary analysis.
Be flexible: Telephone polls and focus groups aren't your only research channels.
Consider mall intercept studies, mail surveys, analysis of media reports, online studies, face-to-face interviews and role-playing or piggybacking on a large market research company's omnibus poll.
Define in advance how the results are going to be used.
Remember that for most PR practitioners, "why" is far more important than "what" or "how." The core of what you're uncovering is why people feel the way they do and what it will take for them to change their minds.
Give serious thought to the total population to be studied. If a sample isn't randomly selected, then questions should be raised about what criteria/parameters are being used to select certain respondents and not others.
Commission Members
Corporate: Thomas Martin, ITT Industries;
Donna Coletti, Texas Instruments,
Cruse Braswell, BellSouth,
Bruce C. Jeffries-Fox, AT&T
Agency: Forrest W; Anderson, Golin/Harris,
Linda Hadley, Porter/Novelli
Research: Walter Barlow, Research Strategies Corp.,
John Gilfeather, Yankelovich Partners,
Katharine Paine, The Delahaye Group Inc.,
Mark Weiner, MediaLink
Academic: Dr. Glen Broom, San Diego State University,
Dr. James Grunig, University of Maryland,
Dr. Linda Hon, University of Florida,
Dr. Donald Wright, University of South Alabama