Not a day goes by where the topic of PR measurement doesn’t pop up in some conversation. It usually comes in the form of my colleagues spending hours plowing through print clips, looking up ad values on Bacon’s, and calling VMS for impressions. And at the end of the day, we deliver an impressive looking, nicely bound book of charts and clippings…and we all breathe a sigh of relief and wait for the client to be impressed with the shear volume of his company’s mentions in hundreds of newspapers. Now, my issue with this is that most companies don’t truly understand PR (heck, I have to explain it to my parents at least twice a week) and when we explain its intricacies, they realize just how complex the PR machine can be. Yet, knowing the complexity, they somehow think that simple charts with numbers and clips are an effective way to measure the value of PR.
So the question becomes – how do we measure PR?
The more traditional methods of measurement involve circulation, impressions, ad value equivalency and PR value. And, as an industry, we’ve somehow decided to apply arbitrary formulas in order to determine impressions (circulation x 2.5 or 3.1) and PR value (ad value x 3). But what exactly do these types of measurements prove? That maybe, best case scenario, our client was mentioned in 2.2 million printed copies of USA Today and possibly – but not likely – seen by 5.5 million readers. Or that it maybe would have cost $30,000 for our client to purchase equivalent ad space? Ok, but what does that mean?
As a side note before I continue, PR’s effectiveness cannot be directly compared to advertising effectiveness. The two forms of communication are drastically different. Advertising messages are very controlled whereas most PR messages are not (which is why they’re seen as more credible and valuable).
The newer methods of measurement suggest a look at quality over quantity. So this means when our client is covered in a newspaper, we rate the story and the quality of the outlet. Was it positive, negative or neutral towards our client? But the question is, once again, so what?
Did any of these measurements prove the value of PR? Sure, we got the client’s name out there (not to entirely discount brand awareness), but how does all of this affect their bottom line? After all, that’s ultimately what matters.
I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes I am more than thrilled to tell a client our PR efforts garnered 4.2 billion impressions. It sounds impressive, right? But the reality is that most of us PR professionals resort to these measurement tactics because we’re constantly pressured to justify PR dollars. PR is a fairly intangible communication strategy, so we feel the need to quantify its value in the hopes it makes it easier to digest. Companies don’t question the value of advertising – and they’re only too happy to spend five times the amount of PR on media buys.
The answer to how we measure PR is this – it’s a combination of tools. You can’t effectively measure a program by any one tool. You need to factor in the overall communications objectives and how those tie back to the company’s business goals. PR effectiveness can best be measured if a company’s key messages, target audience, and desired channels of communication are clearly identified before implementing a program. Second, the PR measurement process should never be carried out by focusing only on the PR components. It needs to be factored into the larger equation of how all programs – advertising, marketing, promotions, PR –are contributing to the bigger picture.
In closing, PR IS valuable. It has a far greater impact on a company’s brand than advertising. Sure, advertising has its place, but PR is one of the most effective branding tactics for a company. In the long term, PR can build, change or maintain a company’s brand reputation by shaping consumer attitudes and perceptions which ultimately lead to a healthier bottom line and consumer loyalty. Shouldn’t that be justification enough?
Recent Comments