PR measurements, such as counting the number of news clips a campaign generates or looking at print-driven impressions, are increasingly being tweaked and enhanced -- and sometimes even abandoned -- in the quest for better methodologies.
Through the decades, PR professionals have typically relied on standard measurement systems -- those that are loosely based on quantifying media accounts -- because they provide ways of justifying to clients the success of a PR program.
But in the '80s, when Johnny Thompson was VP of corporate communications for $6.5 billion Pillsbury, he never quite felt comfortable with the measurement system that determined the worth of a story by multiplying it by three times the cost of an ad. Thompson said he used the method for the six years he was at Pillsbury but he wasn't satisfied with it.
"It was a method I always thought needed to be revisited," said Thompson, who now heads PR for the St. Paul office of The Rowland Company, a New York-based PR company. "I remember when that model, which Procter & Gamble [PG] came up with, was the industry standard."
PR measurements, such as counting the number of news clips a campaign generates or looking at print-driven impressions, are increasingly being tweaked and enhanced -- and sometimes even abandoned -- in the quest for better methodologies.
Through the decades, PR professionals have typically relied on standard measurement systems -- those that are loosely based on quantifying media accounts -- because they provide ways of justifying to clients the success of a PR program.
But in the '80s, when Johnny Thompson was VP of corporate communications for $6.5 billion Pillsbury, he never quite felt comfortable with the measurement system that determined the worth of a story by multiplying it by three times the cost of an ad. Thompson said he used the method for the six years he was at Pillsbury but he wasn't satisfied with it.
"It was a method I always thought needed to be revisited," said Thompson, who now heads PR for the St. Paul office of The Rowland Company, a New York-based PR company. "I remember when that model, which Procter & Gamble [PG] came up with, was the industry standard."
And it's a standard, albeit a simple one, that's still used today.
But that industry standard is becoming part of a list of other commonly used -- and sometimes less than effective -- measurement standards PR practitioners are scrutinizing. It's a list that includes tear sheets, hits on the Internet and adding up the number of press releases sent out for a campaign.
"The often-used method of collecting clips, quite frankly, is sometimes meaningless and unquestionably archaic because it's the gist of the (media) coverage, not the size of the stack of clips, which really counts," said Thompson.
So Thompson has come up with his own measurement system -- an in-house publicity index -- which is being used by six Rowland Co. clients since Thompson devised the method 18 months ago. The proprietary system, which can cost a client about $4,500 a month or around $15,000 for a one-shot deal, takes measurement beyond the typical by requiring those working on campaigns to critically analyze media coverage.
"We think this a worthwhile tool because those in large corporations are spending their time, efforts and thoughts trying to understand why they focus on PR and I want them to know that I have a tracking mechanism that gives more detailed information."
In essence, it gives the client another means to dissect a PR program and determine its worth.
"This index is a better measurement system than most because more and more accountability is required in PR today and people (in upper management who direct corporate PR efforts) want to know that we're doing more than sending out releases. They want to see results," said Deborah Ely, who has studied Thompson's publicity index and hopes to use it in the future. Ely is manager of corporate communications for the Minnesota Educational Association, a nonprofit representing 49,000 state educators.
But there is a bit of irony in the Rowland Company approach because it deviates from the longtime traditional PR tactic of determining the success of a campaign by focusing on all the publicity that was garnered.
The Rowland index is based on the logic that "you can't look at everything" and requires studying a systematically pared-down sample (based on a cross-section of clips representing different types of publications, varying circulation categories and key markets) so that the review is far from perfunctory. The index, however, does take into account traditional benchmark measurements, such as analyzing who the promotional information was sent to as well as CPMs and circulation figures.
"Within the sample, we look at what the media did with the (PR) information," Thompson said. "And if we find they did do something with it, we don't want the clip -- we want the entire publication."
For example, if an article appeared in a newspaper, Rowland staffers also look at other facets of the coverage: Was the story promoted in any other section of the paper? Was there accompanying art, graphics or charts? Was it a prominent feature or a standard news article? Or, in the case of TV coverage, was the segment plugged in a before-show announcement? How much time was devoted to the plug? Was the report negative or positive? (See accompanying chart.)
Robert McGrath, managing director of strategic communications firm The Weiser Group's New York office, said the Weiser company tries to match measurement techniques with the client's business plan. "We try not to use a cookie-cutter model and we incorporate criteria based on several key factors -- the marketing strategy, the target audience and the vehicles which are used to relay the message."
Case in point: The Weiser Group is in the midst of an educational campaign it has headed for The Options Industry Council (which was formed in 1992 by the nation's equity options exchanges) for five years. The partners are the American Stock Exchange, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Pacific Stock Exchange, Philadelphia Stock Exchange and the nation's clearing agency, The Options Clearing Corp.
The Weiser Group's measurement analysis for OIC has been multi-faceted: It has probed the volume and worth of the publicity generated; the number of attendees at OIC-sponsored annual seminars; the amount of equity-trading queries by journalists; and the reach of the information it has disseminated.
"The effectiveness can't be measured at the end if you don't determine the objective in the beginning," McGrath said.
In fact, Gina McFadden, vice president of corporate communications for OIC, is a corporate client who holds PR practitioners to a new measurement litmus test. McFadden and other OIC executives require that The Weiser Group submit a monthly report which details what efforts it is making for OIC.
And the report, McFadden stressed, significantly goes beyond just looking at numbers. It highlights interviews Weiser staffers set up with journalists; press releases it has issued on the number of equity contracts traded monthly; and names of organizations contacted about OIC's seminars.
"We know you can't force a publication to run a story and sometimes it's difficult to measure PR, but we are looking at what efforts are made and how often The Weiser Group is in touch with us (Weiser staffers call several times a week) and how they keep us informed." And it's a relationship that's working because the OIC has its finger on the pulse on what PR efforts are being made on its behalf.
Likewise, New York-based, worldwide PR company Ruder-Finn's Corporate/Investor Relations Division relies heavily on phone surveys to gauge the success of its IR programs. "A lot of it has to do with getting stories in publications and outlets like Forbes, Reuters, Blomberg and the Wall Street Journal and talking to people in the industry," said Ruder-Finn's Alexander Fudukidis, an account group supervisor. "But we always look at quality versus quantity."
(Johnny Thompson, 612/221-0700; Robert McGrath, 212/684-4440; Deborah Ely, 612/227-9541; Gina McFadden, 312/322-6294; Alexander Fudukidis, 212/593-6319)
Rowland Co. Publicity Index
The Rowland Company's publicity index is broken down into the following evaluation criteria with this numerical ranking system:
Physical characteristics
1. Length of article
Method: Ask these questions:
- How long is the article, including graphics and other related items?
- Is it a brief item of an inch or two or is it 20 or 30 column inches?
- What portion of the article is relevant to the topic?
Conclusion: An average clip (approximately 1/4 of a page) receives a 3 rating. An article one-half of a page or more receives a high score, a 5. The lowest score, 1, is given when there is a brief mention.
2. Position
Method: Ask these questions:
- Where is the story positioned? On the front page? On the front page of a section? Or is it buried before the want ads?
- Where does the information appear? On the front page with the main story or after the jump?
- Is there a teaser on the front page of the paper?
Conclusion: A story would receive a 5 rating if there is a teaser on the front page and the article runs on the front page of the section. A 4 or 5 would be given for a story on the front section, above the fold.
3. Graphics
Method: Ask these questions:
- How big is the headline compared to others on the page? Is it one line or two?
- Is there a supplied photo used?
- What is the size and quality of the photo?
- Is there a sidebar or something similar present?
- How prominent is the item?
Conclusion: The graphics score will be the average of the individual ratings for the headline, photo and related items. An average clip -- 3 -- would have a modest headline, two related items and at least one photo.
Message, Context and Objectives
(Aside from the physical characteristics, the value and impact of the article is evaluated along the lines of the key messages being delivered to the reader on a 1-to-10 scale).
1. Use of key message
Method: Ask these questions:
- Were the promotion's key messages included in the story?
- Were they up front or buried in the back?
- Was a spokesperson quoted?
- Are the messages present in the headline or cutline?
Conclusion: Assessment of the key messages is based upon the written marketing plan, and each article is analyzed for the prescribed messages. An article taken verbatim from a release reflecting all the key messages earns a 10. An article, regardless of the length, which doesn't contain any of the key messages receives a 1.
2. Context
Method: Ask these questions:
- Does the story mention a product, but in a negative way?
- Does the story offer a substitution for a product?
- Is the story critical of the industry?
- Does the article have a positive tone?
Conclusion: A positive piece earns a 10 and a negative story garners a 1 or 2. However, when several stories are packaged together, the evaluator needs to determine the overall context.
3. Achievement of promotion objectives
Method: Ask these questions:
- Did the story accomplish what the publicity set out to achieve?
- Was it covered as a stand-alone or included in a wrap-up mention with other ideas?
- What is the overall impact of the clip?
Conclusion: To do this, remember the purpose of the campaign as outlined in the plan. Articles based word-for-word on a release receive a 10.
Source: Johnny Thompson