PR research in corporate America is deeply divided right now. Maybe increased skepticism about Iraq or the nasty election process contributed to divisiveness in our field,
but for whatever reasons, 2004 was a tough year for PR research.
Yet, there always have been people in the PR field who feel PR research is, at best, a waste and, at worst, a sham. Some people expressing these views are important and
powerful figures in PR. Typically, they are top executives of PR and/or communications at corporations.
The arguments most often made are that research is expensive and inconclusive. Regrettably, I've often heard this simple yet powerful observation: My management is not
asking for proof, so why should I spend my precious budget providing it?
A lack of time, money (and fear) has also contributed to the reluctance among PR execs to take measurement tools more seriously.
Couple this reluctance to try research with our field's unwillingness or inability to come up with and aggressively promote a set of standardized measurements, and we have
the groundwork for a 2005 performance at least as bad as that of the Democrats in 2004 (see PR News, Sept. 13, 2004).
At the same time, a growing number of companies have started to make excellent use of research.
In particular, the retailing, cable television, electronics, hotels/gaming, insurance, automobile manufacturing and tobacco industries often include PR research as a
necessary and valuable part of doing business. Companies (and household names) like GM, MetLife, RadioShack, Sears (which is merging with Kmart)
and Texas Instruments come to mind as particularly enlightened organizations that will continue to lead the way to more sophisticated use of measurement.
Unfortunately, a lot of the best PR research work will not see the light of day. I am talking about proprietary work that companies and political and/or advocacy groups do to
improve their market positions or to push their agendas. There are big bucks flowing into this type of PR research--more than ever, if my colleagues are being straight with me--
and the dollars are flowing because these people know it's a good investment.
This work includes novel ways of understanding relationships with key constituencies, modeling how different forms of communications interact and new means for developing
credibility.
It will not, however, be drawn into the public debate we've been considering here. Why? Because PR research is the tool that provides a competitive edge, and a company's
ability to do well will be that much harder if rivals get the recipe.
I certainly don't think it's realistic ever to expect contemporary proprietary work to be shared, but I do think there are other ways to demonstrate the value of PR research:
- Such organizations as the Arthur W. Page Society, the IABC and the Institute for Public Relations could move beyond supporting research to make more
of an effort to market PR research. - Companies could start sharing "old" research that was effective. Sharing insights from a few years past is not going to hurt current market position, and these insights and
methods could be valuable to the PR measurement debate. - Give awards for research studies demonstrating the value of PR to the achievement of business objectives, and not just for creativity. We've seen some progress here in 2004,
but it needs to flourish in 2005. - PR agencies could get serious about research. They could stop using it just for window-dressing and start sharing best practices for the good of the entire industry.
If we can rise to the challenge and make some progress in these areas, we just might prevail over the forces of ignorance.
Contact: Bruce Jeffries-Fox is president of Jeffries-Fox Associates, a Cape May, N.J.-based PR firm. He can be reached at 609.884.8740, [email protected]