The heretic and the number cruncher
John Wagner wasn’t too impressed when Katie Paine introduced a new metric she dubbed PR Value Ratio. Wagner, owner and principal of Houston-based Wagner Communications, has posted several subsequent items that elaborate on his position that communication measurement is overrated and will never be a priority. While Wagner finds some measurement valuable, he sums up his dismissal of measurement as a standard PR component on several grounds:
- The tools are no good
- The tools don’t measure the right things
- Clients don’t want to pay for it
- It’s too much work
- Some PR efforts don’t lend themselves to measurement
Wagner summed up his initial salvo with this gem: “When measurement is possible, great. But it will likely always play second fiddle to good old-fashioned intuition.”
Katie responded by suggesting Wagner isn’t the heretic he dubbed himself, but rather a menace and a dinosaur. While Katie echoes the sentiment of a lot of PR pros—measurement is a path to a seat at the management table—Wagner responded:
If public relations professionals are to be credible “at the table,” we have to make sure that the data we provide for our programs can withstand the scrutiny of bottom-line oriented business managers. In my opinion, that’s impossible to do with most measurement tools based on circulation or viewership.
The debate has turned into a he-said she-said exercise (paraphrased below):
He said: The number of eyeballs viewing placed content isn’t adequate because it doesn’t assess whether the communication influenced the target audience.
She said: Well, duh. Have you never heard of opinion research?
He said: Sure, I’ve heard of opinion research. But who’s gonna pay for that?
And so it goes. Ultimately, though, I have to wonder how much investigation Wagner has done into communication research tools. I reported here last month about a tool Procter & Gamble developed to measure the value of its PR efforts, a tool that showed PR generated higher return on investment than other marketing channels in four out of six brands the company???s PR department tested. The instrument, called PREvaluate, ???incorporates detailed analysis, including information on cost, scope, audience, geographic markets, and possible synergy with other marketing tactics,??? according to Hans Bender, the company???s manager of external relations. A review of Angela Sinickas’ manual on internal communication measurement and Lou Williams’ book on external communication measurement reveals a treasure trove of solid tools. So are the basic PR textbooks, which leads me to my next point:
My biggest objection targets Wagner’s assertion that only some PR efforts lend themselves to measurement. Any PR effort, no matter how large or small, should be based on achieving some kind of outcome. John, are you suggesting that outcomes cannot be measured? Here’s what Cutlip, Center, and Broom write in the widely-used PR 101 textbook, “Effective Public Relations”:
Surely knowledge, outcomes, predisposition changes, and behaviors can be measured. So what excuse justifies not knowing if the action and communication strategies are making progress toward achieving program objectives? What justifies not documenting how the program worked? What justifies not being able to say whether or not the problem has been solved?
The book lists 13 (count ‘em, 13) types of measurement to conduct along three stages of a project:
- Preparation—Adequacy of background information base for designing the program; appropriateness of message and activity content; quality of message and activity presentations
- Implementation—Number of messages delivered to appropriate channels and activities designed; number of messages placed and activities implemented; number who received messages and activities; number who attend to messages and activities
- Impact—Number who learn message content; number who change opinions; number who change attitudes; number who behave as desired; number who repeat behavior; social and cultural change
All of which can be measured; the tools exist. Gut instinct, which Wagner suggests as an appropriate measure, simply won’t cut it in the boardroom. Every other aspect of business—including PR’s cousins in advertising and marketing—is expected to produce measurable results. With attitudes like Wagner’s, it’s no wonder PR gets so little respect! I would point John to a comment posted to this blog in response to an earier item dealing with measurement:
I work at a large R&D driven company and it wasn???t until we started measuring our comms performance (especially internally) that leadership started to take us seriously. Any number of humanistic theories meant little to the leadership, but show them a multivariate analysis and we???re talking! Since then our comms organization has nearly doubled in size, management are aware that they need to do much better in their personal presentations, we are more often on-message, we have better focus on our channel management and finally we can follow long-term trends in the organization.
That’s the power of measurement. As for the notion that clients won’t pay for it, that’s why it needs to be integrated into all programs rather than itemized as an optional service. Perhaps the cost of measurement should be built into hourly billable rates, an assumption that a set percentage of a practitioner’s time will be devoted to assessing the effectiveness of his or her work.
But measure we must. Whether it’s content analysis, opinion surveys, cost avoidance (one of my favorites), eyeballs (if that’s what matters to the client), we need to be able to show that our efforts provide value and we need to be able to show it in a way that’s meaningful to management. Claiming it’s too hard, too expensive, and too much of a challenge to convince clients to undertake measurement are just excuses. Remember what the Holmes Report said about why measurement isn’t happening among the top 100 PR agencies:
In general, (agency) responses suggested that an failure of commitment—rather than the absence of necessary tools and techniques—is behind the industry???s poor (measurement) performance.
Until the industry—including Wagner Communications—makes that commitment, we’ll continue to be viewed as lower-tier, lower-funded alternatives to marketing and advertising.
12/30/05 | 15 Comments | The heretic and the number cruncher