Current industry evaluation problematic

Companies are still so focused on the old traditional method of looking busy. Traditional communication evaluation methods are largely focussed on processes and outputs, instead of being focused on outcomes. What adds to the problem is that communication has rhetoric (words), rather than numeric focus - therefore there is a need to identify key metrics and speak the language of management.

Recent studies and surveys such as the World's Most Admired Company Survey, have added to the confusion. For instance, communication as a discipline only plays a part in the generation and management of an organisation's reputation. Because there are so many other factors involved, communication only adds to, and is not the be all and end all, in these measurements. Yet it is often held responsible for an organisation's reputation management.

Another problem is that we tend to only evaluate only at the end, instead of doing it from the beginning and doing it progressively throughout. Many practitioners believe that there is a lack of PR research tools , yet a variety of low-cost and no-cost evaluation solutions do exist.

Look at this partial list:

• Quantitative Research (surveys)
  
• Qualitative research (focus groups)
  
• Observable Results (sometimes)
  
• Reader & Audience surveys
  
• Media Content Analysis
  
• Awards
  
• Media Monitoring (clippings)
  
• Inquiry or response rates
  
• Readership/audience statistics
  
• Circulation/distribution statistics
  
• Pre-testing (eg, focus groups, PDF's)
  
• Readability studies
  
• Case Studies
  
• Informal focus groups
  
• Feedback
  
• Secondary data (existing research)

Let's take this a bit further. Consider the three levels of measurement:

1. The first level of measuring communications is tracking outputs. This measures the amount of exposure an organisation receives in the media. It tracks the number of placements, the total number of impressions (calculated by multiplying the placement by the number of people who potentially saw it), the equivalent ad value (calculated by multiplying the placement by how much it would have cost to buy advertising - this doesn't factor in the increased credibility of public relations), and/or the likelihood of having reached a specific audience. Some research tools include clipping reports, publicity audits, content analysis and simple public opinion polls. The main question here is: "Did we get our message out?"

2. A second level of quantifying communications is measuring whether or not the target audience actually received and understood the message. Some research tools include focus groups, one-on-one interviews, surveys and recall studies. In this scenario, you ask: "How did we do in getting our audience to remember, understand and pay attention to our message?"

3. The most advanced level for measuring communications is tracking opinion, attitude or behaviour change, and seeking to determine whether there has been a shift in views or how people actually act when it comes to an organization, its products or its services. Research tools include before-and-after studies or pre-and-post tests, experimental research and sophisticated data analysis. In this scenario, you ask yourself: "How did we do in getting our audience to change their behaviour, attitudes or opinions?"
   

While the final scenario is the most complicated and expensive, it produces the kinds of results most often sought by upper management. The bottom line is that CEOs want to know how much the awareness needle moved, or how industry watchers feel about the company, or whatever is important to them. The trouble comes when upper management seeks this type of advanced data while using only the most basic measurement tools.

Beyond increased sales, some other benchmarks of effectiveness could include increased inquiries, votes, attendance, donations, more volunteers, improved employee morale and job satisfaction, crisis aversion and costs saved by avoiding litigation.

In addition to producing more suitable results for company leadership, another benefit to measuring communications and public relations results is adding value to the function and moving beyond press releases and parties.

Accountability is expected throughout business - on the production line, in the accounting office and in the sales department. Communications results are just as important and also ultimately impact the bottom line. They include increased understanding, improved relationships, effective message delivery, earned respect, credibility with media, changed attitudes, competitive distinction and a fine-tuned image.

The way to the Boardroom table is two-way communication focused on Outcomes not simply outputs): building awareness, changing attitudes or behaviour. Practitioners should build measurement and evaluation in from the beginning. They should constantly put themselves in management's socks and evaluate, and re-evaluate key elements of what they do... Or management will...

I believe that it is up to consultancies to act professionally and to learn to use the most up to date methods of evaluation. The IPR/PRCA recommends 10% of the budget should be spent on planning and evaluation. News on media cannot and should not be measured in advertising values. It's unfortunately not so simple as tripling the ad value to find the value of your work and publicity for the client... Sometimes an ad can be more effective than an article, the effectiveness of an article depends on the following:

1. Did the article contain the intended message?
   
2. Was the publication among our target media? (Readership profile, circulation, credibility).
   
3. Were the pictures, images, logos included in the article?
   
4. Was the company/product name/logo in the title?
   
5. Was there a by-line?
   
6. Was there a quotation from a spokesperson?
   
7. Was the article negative/neutral or positive?
   
8. What was the size of the article? Where was it placed?
   
9. The MOST important measurement is the answer to the question, "Did you get the results you were looking for?"
   

This means public relations and the total communication program need to be integrated with every other effort that is ongoing toward achieving the results. In this sense, integrating communications not only means getting the different tools like PR, advertising and promotion on the same track, it means ensuring these tools are working in conjunction with whatever you call human resources, finance, legal, marketing, sales and senior leadership. The second important measure is did the communications function do what it said it was going to do on time and on budget. The answer to that question becomes relevant when the answer to the first question is yes. No matter how much work you did, if it did not help accomplish the actual objective of the organisation then it really doesn't matter.

And what is that objective? Nothing other than: "Building, sustaining and protecting its reputation".

We as PR experts should be the ones to pull PR to another level. It's a challenge for all of us!