RSS SubscribeDid we win? How to measure success in PR
June 2, 2010
One of the enduring myths about PR is that you never know if it has worked; that PR and measurement are somehow incompatible. Of course, this is far from the truth, and many businesses specialise in evaluating public relations programmes. However, what this misconception does highlight is the lack of an industry-wide approach. Finding the right way to measure your PR therefore requires careful consideration.
For many years, Advertising Value Equivalence (‘AVE’) served as the de facto industry standard. This approach involves measuring the dimensions of a published article and, using the publication’s advertising rate card, calculating how much an equivalently-sized advertisement would have cost. This approach was superficially attractive because it offers a simple way to conjure up a ‘value’ figure that frequently exceeds the PR expenditure.
However, AVE has long been criticised for various serious shortcomings. Most obviously, AVE fails to account for whether an article is positive or negative, so a critical pasting scores equally with a rave review. AVE also reflects the prevailing advertising market, which means editorial coverage is bizarrely judged less valuable during a recession. Furthermore, AVE offers no way of evaluating coverage in outlets that do not accept advertising; while this was already problematic for assessing coverage on the BBC, it has become far more of a weakness with the advent of social media.
A better system for evaluating PR would be one that can cope with both traditional coverage and online mentions and is able to analyse the tone, influence, reach and acceptance of the article or ‘conversation’. Unfortunately, standing in the way of this ideal solution are the familiar enemies of time and money. As Louise Terry, communications head at cosmetics giant L’Oréal UK, says: “Thorough measurement that evaluates content, the extent to which messages are communicated, and tone is very expensive and can cost as much as the PR campaign itself.”
In the absence of a catch-all solution, many organisations instead use a combination of evaluation methods. For example, AVE figures, with their acknowledged shortcomings, may be supplemented by website traffic figures, online press release readership statistics and qualitative opinion research.
At the most basic level, all companies should employ a cuttings agency to provide a comprehensive media monitoring service. To undertake a PR programme without this support is akin to kicking a football but not looking to see if you have scored.
There are a wide selection of PR monitoring and measurement tools, such as Google Alerts, media monitoring system Meltwater and social media tool Radian6. For even more sophisticated scrutiny of your PR effectiveness, you might want to consider the thoughts of US PR measurement guru Katie Delahaye Paine or the services of a global media analysis and evaluation company like Metrica.
Finding the right approach for your company again depends on time and money. However, although smaller organisations may be unable to afford comprehensive evaluation, all businesses should be aiming for a clear sense of their media and online profile.
To learn more about PR measurement and evaluation, read PR Week’s features on AVE and online measurement.
Thanks for the mention and post.
I really couldn’t agree more when you say PR should look to diversify the tools used to measure success.
While sentiment is not an exact science just yet when it comes to understanding reach and influence social media monitoring can provide the necessary information for businesses to base important decisions on as well as offer considerable ROI if that knowledge is used to make the right decisions. Social media monitoring tools may not be free but can often pay for themselves when used the right way.
Look forward to reading more.
Olivia Landolt
Marketing and Community Manager
@6Consulting
UK focused Radian6 partner
Thanks for the shout out! I see the world moving towards that integrated system you are advocating. One of our clients saw the percentage of “traditional” media coverage fall from 90% three years ago to 9% today. You also might emphasize the importance of accuracy. Companies like Radian6 that do Automated sentiment analysis are typically only accurate about 60% of the time. And, there are no equivalent accurate equivalents for AVE in that online world.
Agreed Katie, automated sentiment analysis is not 100% however the sentiment algorithms are continuously evolving, and they are getting better day by day.
We always recommend human analysis when business decisions are based on sentiment and it’s worth noting that the software does allow you to change the sentiment allocated manually if there is any inaccuracy.
Olivia Landolt
@6Consulting
Interesting article re measuring PR impact. One trend I see as an editor is companies opting NOT to advertise but to instead spend significant sums arranging multiple and quite complex press briefings to get what they perceive to be “free publicity”. I understand why they do this, but some companies seem oblivious to the fact that without advertising many media outlets simply cannot support the editorial resources needed to deliver all this “free publicity”. Our organisation has a very strict separation between advertising and editorial—of which I am very proud. Nonetheless, I do find it a bit vexing to be expected to provide almost limitless availability of reporters (many of whom are freelance who have to be paid by the day, by me) to support the PR efforts of companies who give nothing back to the media in terms of advertising support.
Thanks to Olivia and Katie for their expert input (and great to see them using the tools of their trade and picking up on the mentions so quickly!)
Charles, thanks for your point too. While we obviously talk about the virtues and importance of public relations (well, we would, wouldn’t we?) I completely agree that advertising must play its part, both to communicate messages and – as you rightly say – to ensure that the chosen publications can still exist in the first place!
Rupert Murdoch’s current theme is that quality journalism costs money and has to be paid for somehow. Although the debate is presently about whether to offer content free online, it is just as relevant to the importance of advertising to the media business model.
Advertising and PR do different things well, and the best marketing programmes tend to use both.
Marc
Good piece – good comments – all spot on. We all know intuitively when something works or doesn’t work, but putting the result into business terms has always been the tough part. I’m going to look into the systems you mention. One more thing – the last line of your comment above may be tweaked to say the best programmes tend to use both “in an integrated fashion.” One band – one sound. Sounds like Marketing 101 but you’d be surprised . . .
Thanks, Scoop (:-). You are indeed absolutely spot on. The integration of PR, advertising and now SEO around particular campaigns, messages or issues is the best route to engage your audience on all fronts. And you’ve just given me a great idea for another post, so many thanks!