John you're a menace, not a heretic

In a wonderfully surreal moment of synchronicity, I'm holed up in here in the Outer Banks, finishing up the chapter on measuring blogs for my upcoming book on measurement while reviewing the responses to my recent blog on PR Value.

First of all, thanks to all of you who have taken up the measurement cause and spread the word. Secondly, John Wagner asks that we call him a heretic for suggesting that PR shouldn't be measured. I don't think he's a heretic, but we will name him a "Menace" in the next issue of our newsletter.

Here's why: It's clear that after years of struggling for the proverbial "seat at the table," it clear from the recent CIPR study that PR is starting to truly gain the respect and ear of the C-suite. The problem is that when we get to that table, if we're armed with "gut instinct" as Wagner advises, and the marketing folks show up with charts graphs and hard data about what has worked in the past, we're going to look like idiots. Can you imagine if the CFO walked in and said "I know we're making money because my gut says so and I see checks coming in?"  He'd be out the door faster than you could say Sarbanes Oxley. And we should be too if we can't come up with some good numbers given all the measurement tools that are out there.  It's simply fiscally irresponsible not to measure your PR results.

John also claims that you "can't accurately measure how many people read or view a media story."  We've heard this for years, and its spurious argument. Who cares -- audited circulation figures have been believed for years by marketers and advertisers -- if they can use them to justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars, why shouldn't PR people use them to justify spending their millions or thousands.

John also says that you can't measure how many people "understood your key message." Uh John, are you such a dinosaur that you've never heard of an opinion survey?  Of course we're not advocating media measurement as the only research tool. The best measurement  programs combine media analysis with opinion research, web site traffic analysis and other metrics to measure not just outputs but outcomes as well. 

And to John's claim that PR can't be measured, we offer the Southwest airlines case study that ties millions of dollars in ticket sales straight back to specific press releases.

Comments

[Kami Huyse]

Katie: I think that this debate shows how critical it is for PR practioners to know more about low to no-cost measurement tools.

There are many clients out there that can't afford the big guns liek KD Paine. John serves mostly local and reginal clients who have an even harder time with measurement that corporate America did (and sometimes still does).

That is why I like your PRV measurement. It can be done by anyone. Thanks for sharing it.

[Piaras Kelly]

PR practitioners should concentrate on setting better objectives and then it'll be easier for them to evaluate whether they were a success or not. How do you know if you've scored if you don't know where the goalposts are?

I don't think that there's a one-size-fits-all solution for PR measurement and I don't think that anyone could ever create one because of the scope of a communications strategy. One project might involve the web, another word-of-mouth, I don't think the same measurement tool can measure both accurately. Your success depends on the objectives you set for yourself.

[John Wagner]

Katie:

I'm not really a menace ... as I said in my post, I believe there are times when measurement works. I even included an example of a program I was involved in where accurate measurement played a big role in determining the overall value of the effort. I could give you several others.

At the same time, I don't believe it's a "spurious argument" to say that you can't measure how many people read, understand or care about a news article. It goes to the very heart of the accuracy of your measurement.

The fact that advertising firms use those same metrics doesn't make them correct. And traditional advertising is dying a slow death while media buyers continue to flash fake reports of how many "eyeballs" saw a particular ad.

The other issue that I mentioned will always be with us -- it's expensive, time-consuming and sometimes difficult to measure accurately the impact of a particular program. Clients and organizations don't always want to pay for that, and what agency is going to turn down business because the client won't measure? None I know of.

I'm not against showing up "at the table" with facts and figures. But senior executives aren't fooled by many of the tools that are currently in use.