Walter Lindenmann - a Columbia University Ph.D. in sociology whose name is as synonymous with measurement as Bill Clinton is with scandal - will retire early next year from Ketchum.
After several decades in the measurement arena, Lindenmann will begin a part-time schedule this fall while the firm searches for a new director of research. Lindenmann joined Ketchum in 1987 after two years as the manager of Opinion Research Corp., New York.
Lindenmann's departure, however, comes more than 20 years after he became a bellwether for PR measurement. Lindenmann helped spearhead efforts to motivate PR execs to measure the impact of their campaigns and programs, but he's closing shop before a solution is found.
"I'm not frustrated [that measurement is yet to be standardized], but I'm not totally satisfied either," he told PR NEWS last week.
The PR industry has stepped up its focus on measurement during this decade, at times solely inspired by gurus like Lindenmann and pioneers like Katie Paine, founder of The Delahaye Group (recently acquired by Medialink). The press release about Lindenmann's retirement hit shortly after the Institute for Public Relations released a guidebook written by the Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation. The document is designed to help pros set measurable PR objectives and is the second of a three-book series intended to shed more light on this slippery subject. (Lindenmann is overseeing the sequential books.)
The problem with the most recent publication is that it really doesn't present an argument for anything new. Again, all measurement enthusiasts seem to be doing is presenting a case for measurement. We content that the battle over why we need measurement has been won. What is needed now is to establish how firms should adequately measure PR.
Although an increasing number of white papers, surveys and studies underscore the need for measurement, some of the barometers buttressing the measurement movement date back to the early 1990s.
A 1992 survey by the Public Relations Society of America's Counselors Academy revealed that 70 percent of 1,000 execs identified "demand for measured accountability" as a top concern, but neither PRSA nor the newly formed Council of PR Firms have yet been able to come up with sound answers.
And some of the greatest strides have been made abroad.
The U.K.-based International Public Relations Association has provided some of the better analysis in the field, says Lindenmann. Its 1994 Gold Paper No. 11, "Public Relations Evaluation: Professional Accountability," is still viewed as a timely guidebook.
Narrowing the Gap
To PR neophytes, Lindenmann's departure may not mean much, but for those who have followed the measurement issue, it signifies a crossroads in this era of placing a value on PR.
Lindenmann became a champion for measurement 23 years ago when he took over as president of Hill and Knowlton's Group Attitudes Corp., a research subsidiary first headed by Jane Stewart, wife of former H&K officer John Mapes. But then the measurement debate had yet to erupt and fester. Planning and development was the focus.
The 70s and 80s ushered in the quantitative era when counting clips became the rage, says Lindenmann.
It wasn't until this decade that PR executives (prodded by corporations wanting to determine the net worth of communication) pushed for qualitative measurement.
This kind of measurement generally requires as much analysis as it does a range of tools to gather key information. It is highly ROI-slanted and is not based on a single formula, but rather on culling from myriad approaches to gauge varied goals.
Focus groups, mall intercepts, attitudinal surveys and one-on-one interviews are all barometers used to measure success for what are some pretty significant bottom line indicators: increased market share or better productivity.
The Perfect Paradigm
Lindenmann said he doesn't believe there will ever be one PR measurement system, but there will be a set of guidelines - what he calls a "checklist" - to govern how firms ultimately weigh the value of PR.
The problem is Lindenmann isn't sure which organization (IPR, PRSA, the Council of PR Firms, among others) will be the pioneers.
Lindenmann's legacy is sure to be the reams of reports he has overseen and his continued quest to make measurement a PR must, instead of a PR maybe. But it's impossible to evaluate now whether the efforts of IPR and other such organizations have amounted to much more than preaching to the choir.
And while Lindenmann isn't abandoning his measurement slot at Ketchum to take a similar role at another Big-10 firm, he is leaving for something far more stable than measurement.
This summer, he and his wife will begin building a house in Virginia so the couple can spend more time with their four children and three grandchildren. (Ketchum, 212/448-4411; IPR, 352/392-0280; IPRA, 011 (44) 181-481-7635.)
Measuring Outcomes
Measurement often relies on outcome analysis - examining the end result of PR efforts. Techniques include:
Focus group discussions measure change in knowledge or attitude. During focus groups, communicators and analysts are trying to review perceptions of a representative group as well as use direct feedback to decipher "the depth of feeling" participants have about key messages;
In-depth interviews help communicators nail down constituents' beliefs, attitudes and behaviors - in short, finding out what motivates consumers'/ investors'/employees' actions;
Surveys should be designed to glean a degree of change in audience members' knowledge or attitudes after program exposure (this method is used to confirm or measure actual change);
Unobtrusive data collection measures behavior without affecting it. It's often based on studying a certain population;
Activity outcome: Traditionally, these kinds of questions are posed: Was there a change in legislation? Did share price increase or decrease? How many calls came into a hotline? Were sales goals met?
Source: International Public Relations Association