Media measurement requires quantity and quality – cuttings in themselves are not enough

With Principle One having established that PR practice must have some measureable link to business-related goals, we come to Principle Two, which seeks to establish the nature of that measurement.

The collection and counting of cuttings (and the related calculation of impressions) is a measurement solely of output, and what good is simply measuring output, especially when the basis for success is just “more is better”?

What would happen if the operations team acted on the same basis, producing as much product as they could and measuring their success simply on getting that product out to market? What if they were not concerned with whether it was being produced at the highest quality for the lowest cost, or sold at a profit, or whether people were actually buying the product at all?

A business that only cared about making stuff and putting it in stores without worrying about whether it was profitable, or was even selling, would not be a business for long. Yet communications teams that understand their only goal to be “produce public relations messages” (see Principle One) and measure that goal on volume that they get into outlets are the equivalent of such a business. » Read more…

I use this coin analogy in the title intentionally, since this is a post about business. In their first principle, AMEC states the “fundamental” nature of goal setting and measurement for PR.

Why did the AMEC delegates agree that goal setting and measurement are fundamental aspects of PR programs? Couldn’t one argue (as I’ve occasionally witnessed) that the quality and effective placement of communications are the only fundamental aspect of PR programs, and that everything else is just nice to have?

I’ve worked with many PR teams who do understand the importance of goals and the value of measurement. But I’ve also encountered far too many communications teams who have trouble answering the question “what does the business expect from you?” (This is true, and increasingly common, for dedicated “social media” teams as well.) Equally concerning is the far-too-broad response “to raise awareness/visibility of the company/brand”.

Communications teams can get away with not having a business case, or having a very general business case, for a while, and sometimes even for years. But eventually, someone in the organization will begin to wonder about the value of keeping communications-as-usual versus adding more marketing, or sales staff, or operational improvements, and at that point, the lack of a sound business answer to “why are we here” becomes deadly. » Read more…

Last week, the International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) concluded its second annual European Summit on Measurement with a ‘Declaration of Research Principles’ voted on by over 200 delegates from 33 countries and five communications organizations. The declaration outlined seven key principles:

1. Goal setting and measurement are fundamental aspects of any PR programs.
2. Media measurement requires quantity and quality – cuttings in themselves are not enough.
3. Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs) do not measure the value of PR and do not inform future activity.
4. Social media can and should be measured.
5. Measuring outcomes is preferred to measuring media results.
6. Business results can and should be measured where possible.
7. Transparency and Replicability are paramount to sound measurement.

Here is a link to the AMEC site describing the Declaration. Given the intellectual grounding and professional experience supporting these principles, there should really be no hesitation by communications practitioners to adopt these principles in practice. I look forward to exploring the potential for implementing these principles over a series of upcoming posts.