How can we measure the effectiveness of PR?

The honest answer is...we usually can’t.

Well, perhaps that’s a trifle glib; but it’s basically true. Measuring the effects of PR is certainly not easy, and we’re some way from any kind of consensus among professional PR practitioners as to how we should go about it. In fact, there’s not even agreement in the industry as to which parameters are the most appropriate indicators, let alone how to measure them. There’s no shortage of words on the subject, though, and some of these words are contained in the most recent research paper from the UK’s Chartered Institute of PR, called “Best Practice in the Measurement and Reporting of Public Relations and ROI”.

PR measurement - a flawed concept?

Which sounds, let’s face it, promising. It would, you’ll probably agree, be nice to have a best-practice model which allows us to measure unambiguously our PR efforts in terms of return on investment. It would certainly help keep the board happy. Sadly, however, the CIPR is as quick to dispel our hopes as it is to raise them. The first conclusion of the research states: “This study found no clear or unambiguous examples of contributions from PR …within an ROI framework.” Oh, well. It was a nice idea while it lasted.

And there’s worse. The study (conducted across a research base of private and public organisations) found “…a very significant minority of respondents [who] say that PR benefits cannot be comprehensively measured, and probably should not be…”. In other words, many respondents felt that not only can’t we measure the effects of PR, but that it’s wrong, even in principle, to try.

The options...

So, where does all this lead us? After all, you want some kind of reassurance that your investment is paying off. Here’s a (very) quick roundup of some of the more common techniques in use. They all find varying degrees of acceptance; none have a unanimous vote of confidence.

“I don’t think there is such a thing as a formal measurement of PR, and I don’t believe anyone who says they can.”

Reported by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations

Surveys

Pre- and post-campaign awareness and attitudinal surveys are among the most reliable methods of measuring PR effectiveness. Designed and executed properly they can give an accurate guide to campaign success. But they’re also expensive. In fact, in the B2B environment they’re usually prohibitively so – it makes little sense to spend more on measuring the effects of your PR than on the campaign itself!

Incremental sales or financial metrics

Superficially attractive until you remember that such measures will almost always be the combined result of various activities. Disaggregating the effects of a single measure is close to impossible, unless you go back to the research option. Plus, of course, you shouldn’t (except rarely) be using PR as a primary sales driver in the first place. If you are, the chances are you’re not using your budget as effectively as you could.

Advertising Value Equivalents

Ah, the good old AVE. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a basically simple idea - you add up all your press coverage and then find out how much it would have cost to get the same “space” through the advertising route. Sounds attractive, but it’s a pretty dubious measure, for lots of reasons. Indeed, the CIPR goes so far as to describe it as a  “…discredited measure [which leads to] false comparisons [and] false decision-making.” All the same, it can be useful and people do use it (we’ve done so ourselves, occasionally) – it can play a role in trend analysis, for example. But it’s definitely a pill you shouldn’t swallow without reading the packet!

Clippings

This is the probably the B2B chart-topper - used by many, if not most. And with good reason. It’s relatively easy, relatively cheap, and relatively clear. A comparison of YOY (or perhaps half-yearly) cuttings may not be a quantitatively reliable measure, but it will give you as good a feel for progress as anything else.

“...significant numbers of organisations do not expect to make [PR] assessments in a quantifiable or tangible way.”

CIPR

Hunting the snark

There’s other things you can do, of course, but space forbids a mention of them here. However, we’ll be happy to expand on the theme, if we enter a dialogue. But, be warned: there’s no silver bullet. Quantitative PR measurement is like the snark - hunting for it may be an exercise doomed to failure. 

The truth and nothing but the truth

So, why are we telling you all this? Are we effectively shooting ourselves in the foot? We believe not. After all, they’re the facts of the matter. And they’re facts you’re going to find out sooner or later. We’d rather it was sooner.

And none of the above implies that PR is not an immensely powerful communications tool. It is, and we all know it is. It’s just that measuring that power is a difficult, if not impossible, job.

“The primary benefits of PR are seen as longer-term and concerned with raising awareness, maintaining or enhancing perception and reputation, and improving professional standing.”

CIPR