It seems not all Canadians are as enthusiastic about the CPRS's MPR system as you might think from the initial press hoopla.
My favorite Canadian Measurement Pioneer and Potentate, Andrew Laing of Cormex, had this to say:
" Canadian PR practitioners with larger companies and government agencies (we can do that here) have been in tune to getting media measurement reports for over a decade, but the Canadian PR companies (like their U.S. counterparts, as you know) have resisted measurement. Media measurement techniques themselves have been around decades. It's only (as one PR measurement committee member put it) a "watershed moment" for the PR firms, not the PR profession.
- By its name, likening MRPs to GRPs is disingenuous: GRPs are calculated using a pretty straightforward mathematical calculation, while MRPs involve a considerable degree of subjectivity to compute.
-MRPs are simply a way to let the Canadian PR firms continue to grade their own homework. PR firms determine the tone of the articles covering their own campaigns, as well as whether the brand message is truly present and other qualitiative elements. There is no working definition for these terms (and I mean 'working', because they define tone as "any sound in relation to its pitch, quality or strength." -- hey, can you imagine telling your readers/coders that one!!!). Every spreadsheet I've seen come across my desk from a PR firm on their media coverage ranks almost everything as 'positive', so its like an automatic five points.
Measurement should be about improving our understanding of the profile of an organization or initiative, not simply giving it a grade. [See Jim Grunig's comments] Cormex would be out of business long ago if we took a box of clips and tapes, reviewed them and came back with an 8.9. Sorry, but it feels like ice dancing.