The Measurement Standard: Blog Edition

The Single PR Metric and Flying Pigs

Jim Macnamara's "Measuring Up"

A series of recent blog posts got me going because they raised – yet again – the hoary old goat of a single PR metric. Or perhaps that should be the hoary old flying pig of PR metrics. If ever there was a creature of folklore and fantasy, this is it. But, rather than being a harmless creature of myth, the single metric of public relations continues to divert the industry from meaningful progress. Its fruitless pursuit soaks up a lot of effort and time that could be productively devoted to getting on and measuring PR.

Despite being disavowed by many leading thinkers in the field, "for many in public relations measurement, the Holy Grail is a single, powerful metric of success," as Don Bartholomew wrote early this year in his MetricsMan blog.

What is intriguing about this ongoing debate and fruitless search is that even a cursory glance at other closely related fields of practice show that the chances of finding a single metric are about the same as finding pigs that fly. For instance, there is no single metric used in market research. Imagine trying to reduce all the various things that market researchers need to measure to a single metric.

Similarly, in social research there is no single metric. Even the highly developed media ratings business has a range of metrics for various media including Target Audience Ratings Points (TARPs), Cost Per Rating Point (CPRP), Cost Per Thousand Members of an audience (CPM), recall, Opportunities to See (OTS), visits, Unique Visitors, duration, return visits, click throughs, and so on. Researchers in other sectors of marketing and corporate communication use a range of methods including surveys, response mechanisms, diaries, peoplemeters, internet logfiles, tags, etcetera.

Why does the public relations industry think that there could be a single metric for expressing the value and contribution of the diverse range of practices deployed under the broad heading of "public relations" ranging from analyst relations to social media? And why does the industry beat itself up trying to find such a single PR metric?

What is recognized as important in other research and media metrics fields is that basic standards are important. These do not specify a particular metric or a particular measurement product, but they establish a framework of what types of things are worth measuring and what methods are reliable in doing so. The Institute for Public Relations in the U.S. and a number of other bodies have, to a significant extent, established standards – although these could be more formalized and simplified into a "how to" and "how not to" guide for practitioners.

From a review of PR measurement literature in both academic and industry journals, Anne Gregory and Tom Watson in the UK concluded in a late 2008 paper published in the Journal of Marketing Communications that there is a substantial gap between what researchers and PR scholars advocate and what practitioners do, and that this gap needs to be closed. Gregory and Watson also concluded that the answer is not a single metric. To the contrary, they concluded that a range of measures are available and need to be more widely promoted and used. For instance, they suggested that practitioner-developed dashboards that collect and display a range of metrics together – both informal and formal – need to be given greater attention, rather than hierarchic models which suggest optimum outcome level measurement.

As the developer of one of those hierarchic models (the Pyramid Model of PR Research), I must point out that it would be a misinterpretation to conclude that such approaches advocate any single measurement. Rather, they emphasize the importance of recognizing outcomes as a more advanced level of measurement than outputs, and in fact the Pyramid Model lists more than 20 metrics available for various PR activities. However, Gregory and Watson have a good point in emphasizing the need to look at practical considerations as well as normative ideals in measurement.

While that does not mean abandoning standards and producing metrics that are questionable (such as so-called Advertising Value Equivalents which are a measure of cost, not value, and do not apply to many online sites) a grounded approach of what is available and doable will always have to be integrated with Best Practice high level metrics when these can be generated. Metrics reported also have to be geared to the expectations and needs of senior management. 

Also, there are significant differences in requirements for evaluating an internal newsletter compared with a multi-million dollar campaign. And measurement must be related to objectives which vary from increasing awareness to creating behavioral change. That means multiple metrics are inevitable, necessary and sensible.

Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC became Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney in 2007 after a 30-year career working in journalism, public relations and media research which culminated in selling the CARMA Asia Pacific franchise which he founded to Media Monitors in 2006. He worked as Group Research Director with Media Monitors - CARMA Asia Pacific following the sale and continues as a Consultant with the Group.

Social Media Is Just Part of the Media

Jim Macnamara's "Measuring Up"

Savvy communicators integrate social media into their strategy and measurement mix.

We are hearing a lot about social media these days, also referred to as "new media," "Web 2.0," and other terms. A look at the most popular Measurement Standard articles so far this year shows that social media is "Top of the Pops" in PR currently. Also, every conference program features a number of speakers spruiking* social media. The whole world seems to be a-Twitter, so to speak.

Meanwhile, newspapers continue to close in major cities, TV ratings slide further except for a few blockbuster entertainment programs, and media pundits worldwide are again predicting "the end of newspapers", "the end of journalism" and even "the end of advertising."

The development of social media is just as significant as the development of writing, the printing press, and broadcast media. To not recognize this is to miss what some are calling the fourth media revolution. Anyone who doesn't "get" social media had better get out of the communication business.

Social media are just part of the mix

However, an equal danger in focusing so much attention on social media is loss of the big picture, and a loss of integration in media and communication programs.

Communication and media theory have evolved through many cycles over the past 50 years, ranging from direct "injection" thinking to limited effects views that claim media only reinforce existing attitudes. However, most audience researchers and communication practitioners today agree that creating awareness -- and changing attitudes and behaviour -- are effected by a number of influences, not a single source or channel of information.

What this means is that social media are just part of the communication and media mix. They are an increasingly important part, and focus on social media is eminently justified. However, PR practitioners need to carefully critique the hype about social media, and the doom and gloom predictions about traditional media.

Endism is shown to be flawed in most cases. For instance, George Gilder confidently predicted the end of television in 1994. In the same year, Roland Rust and Richard Oliver declared the death of mass media advertising in an article in the Journal of Advertising. In his 2004 book The Vanishing Newspaper, Philip Meyer used US newspaper readership trend data from 1967 to 2002 to predict the imminent end of newspapers. When VCRs entered the market in the 1970s, doomsayers predicted the end of cinema. You get my drift.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for emergent media, as I prefer to call new forms of media, which can include new applications of traditional forms such as Internet TV and interactive advertising. But history shows that change is complex and gradual and usually leads to hybrids and mixed breeds rather than single species domination. Therefore, public communicators need to keep their skills sharp across a range of media and think holistically rather than unilaterally.

Furthermore, there is extensive evidence that traditional and social media feed off each other. Information first released in a small readership blog gains momentum when it is taken up by major newspaper groups and TV networks. Likewise, major media stories are critiqued, commented on, and sometimes corrected by social media. Increasingly, writers write for both. And the public is increasingly reading, viewing, and listening to a combination of multiple media. "Multimodal" is a new cool word. Audiences are increasingly multimodal in seeking information, and communicators need to be multimodal in providing it.

Industry changes ahead: integration and mergers

Multimedia, or multimodal thinking, needs to be incorporated into strategy and into media monitoring and analysis. Strategic planning should utilize a range of media recognizing strengths and weaknesses of each. And media monitoring and analysis should be broad-based and integrated.

As with many innovations, new services such as monitoring and analyzing social media emanate from new specialist suppliers. However, monitoring and analyzing social media needs to be integrated with traditional media monitoring and analysis in order to identify the total audience reach of messages, overall tone and favourability, and to understand what is driving what. This can be very important in issues management and for planning as well as measurement.

Media monitoring and analysis firms not offering comprehensive integrated services across traditional and social media need to catch up fast. A spate of mergers, acquisitions and partnerships is likely in the media monitoring and analysis space over the next few years, with consolidation and a few innovative leaders emerging.

Integration will pose challenges and opportunities in methodology as traditional metrics, such as circulation and ratings, have to be combined with emergent measures of links, views, downloads, and ratings. One thing is for sure: Advertising value equivalents are not the answer for media spaces that cannot be bought.

Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC became Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney in 2007 after a 30-year career working in journalism, public relations and media research which culminated in selling the CARMA Asia Pacific franchise which he founded to Media Monitors in 2006. He worked as Group Research Director with Media Monitors - CARMA Asia Pacific following the sale and continues as a Consultant with the Group.

* Definition: spruiking: To promote or strongly advocate by speaking in public. (Australian)

Where's the Conversation in Public Relations?

Jim Macnamara"s "Measuring Up"

Is PR just monologue disguised as dialogue?

by Jim Macnamara, PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC

I'm giving a talk this month to the Public Relations Institute of Australia in a seminar series titled "Conversation with a Fellow." In the spirit of conversation, I am proposing to talk for half of the allotted time and then open the topic to discussion. And so I thought, "Why not extend the conversation here in The Measurement Standard?" Particularly as the topic of the conversation is "Conversation in Public Relations."

By that I mean the extent to which public relations today is a two-way dialogue, or better still, a conversation between organizations and their stakeholders or "publics." Or is it one-way top-down monologue? Or is it what philosopher Martin Buber called "monologue disguised as dialogue?"

This article is the gist of my talk's conversation opener, which is sure to stir up some debate among Australian PR practitioners and possibly US practitioners here as well.

Media defined and redefined:
From top down to Web 2.0

Media and communication are increasingly defined and identified as practices rather than as technologies or texts or producers or audiences, which media studies of the past has tended to focus on. For instance, media historian Lisa Gitelman defines media as "socially realized structures of communication, where structures include both technological forms and their associated protocols, and where communication is a cultural practice." Eminent scholar Nick Couldry, writing about the Internet and modern societies, calls for a new approach to media research focusing on "media as practice" in which media are embedded within and interlocked with social and cultural practices.

With rapid growth of the open public network of the Internet and the evolution of Web 2.0, the way media and communication are practiced is being redefined in democratic and even non-democratic societies. Some refer to the key changes as the five, six or seven Cs – namely:

• Connectivity (like never before),
• Conversations enabled by the interactive capability of Web 2.0 media, and
• Collaboration that is harnessing
• Collective intelligence to create
• Content that is increasingly user-generated, diverse and openly shared, leading to
• Communities unconstrained by geography, and enabling true
• Communication.

These factors are revolutionizing approaches to creative design, strategic planning in organisations, product development, policy making in government, and many other fields. But in terms of media and communication, there are three particularly noteworthy characteristics.

1. A shift from top-down one-way monologue to dialogue. People now want to have a say and they have the tools to do so;
2. Furthermore, two-way dialogue does not work well based on formal speeches, rhetoric, propaganda and what Geert Lovink terms "lecture" and "sermon" by elites such as politicians, corporations or journalists. Rather, cultural practices have shifted to conversations – real people talking in their real voice and listening;
3. An essential element of conversations and engagement in media practices focused on collaboration, collective intelligence, open content and community is authenticity.

But where is public relations? Where's the dialogue?

Against this trend, let's look at the practice of public relations.

After a shaky start, public relations set out to conceptualize itself as different from propaganda and also different from advertising. Modern models of public relations emphasize two-way interaction, dialogue and relationships. At a practical level, public relations recognized and accepted that attitudes, perceptions and actions of people could not be controlled, nor editorial content, only influenced. Advertising unashamedly operates within a control paradigm, but, theoretically at least, public relations practice is located in a negotiated, mutually-focused environment.

Group Chief Executive of the WPP Group, Martin Sorrell, referred to this open uncontrolled interactive nature of public relations in a speech about future media and communication to the Yale Club in New York in November last year. He said: "There are risks and opportunities inherent in the more complex uncontrolled communication environment of social media. But public relations is used to working in an uncontrolled environment. It is its natural territory."

But is it?

My experience as a media analyst for a decade -- involving analysis of hundreds of interviews, public statements and six media training programs -- suggests that, somewhere along the way, PR practice has lost its commitment to working in an uncontrolled environment. It is now almost universal PR practice to create and distribute carefully crafted, increasingly promotional messages and instruct organization spokespersons to stay "on message." Spokespersons are told to repeat key messages ad infinitum in interviews, hardly ever answering questions that are asked. In fact, many media training programs urge spokespersons not to answer questions.

Most media training programs and guides analyzed use terms like "manage" the interview, "control" the interview and all advocate pre-preparing messages and staying "on message," irrespective of questions asked. Media interviews have become promotions rather than dialogues. Similarly, news releases, newsletters, Web sites and many corporate blogs present slick, rhetorically air-brushed and Photoshopped images of organizations that are often indistinguishable from advertising.

It is true that some public relations programs are making genuine efforts to use Web 2.0 media, and this is moving in the right direction towards dialogue. However, the danger in this is that, even though new interactive media are available and being used, the habits and practices that have evolved over the past decade or two will be brought to Web 2.0 media. Witness the many corporate and organization blogs that are heavily moderated.

Where's the dialogue? Where's the conversation? Where's the authenticity?

The fact that many PR practitioners measure editorial publicity in terms of advertising cost equivalents, or what they illogically call Advertising Value Equivalents, further illustrates that many in public relations see editorial media coverage much like advertising.

Meanwhile, ironically, advertising is in serious trouble. The hyperbole, slick imagery and glib promises of 30-second TV commercials and press advertising are being rejected by a new generation of cynical media savvy users. On television, advertising is being filtered out with TiVo. On the Internet it is being deleted using ad blocking software and many sites do not allow advertising. Deloittes has warned that public antipathy towards advertising is growing and a survey has found that 76 per cent of Internet users find online advertising intrusive and 28 per cent say they will pay to avoid advertising.

The reason that advertising is in so much trouble is not changing technology – technically advertising can easily be placed on most Web sites. The underlying reason for this shift is changing practices of media and communication – the growing rejection of one-way top-down monologue in favour of interaction and dialogue and the rejection of "spin," rhetoric, and hyperbole in favor of authentic conversations.

It seems to me that in trying to amp-up its promotional messages and control communication, public relations is traveling the wrong way down the information superhighway.

What's this got to do with measurement? Well, possibly not much. But then again, if we are measuring the attitudes, perceptions, expectations, and reactions of key publics, we would know what needs to be done to align organizations with their publics and not alienate them. Another measurement strategy might be to construct a "spin index" to measure how much organizational communication reflects authenticity and conversation and how much pushes the needle into the red zone of "spin." 

Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC became Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney in 2007 after a 30-year career working in journalism, public relations and media research which culminated in selling the CARMA Asia Pacific franchise which he founded to Media Monitors in 2006. He worked as Group Research Director with Media Monitors - CARMA Asia Pacific following the sale and continues as a Consultant with the Group.

The Measurement Summit, Part 2: Jim Macnamara

(See Part 1 of this series, on Shel Israel, here.)

IPR's annual Summit on Measurement has come to Portsmouth again, and I was lucky enough to be able to sit down over a couple beers for some great conversation with Jim Macnamara. He is a presenter at the Summit this year, also a professor at the University of Technology at Sydney, has been in the measurement business for 30 years, has written about a dozen books, is hard at work on his next, and is a regular contributor to The Measurement Standard.

Before we get to that, let me remind everyone what a great conference the Summit on Measurement is. Each year, a hundred or so of the smartest and most interesting people in public relations measurement and research get together for two or three days of exchanging ideas and eating lobster and meetings and drinking and learning about the state of measurement and how to do it better. I've been to every one of these conferences, (As I vaguely recall, I was doing the promo materials for it back when Katie Paine and The Delahaye Group started it about ten years ago.) and there are new things to learn and people to meet at every one of them. Go to it next year.

Back to Jim Macnamara. We discussed social media while engaging in a very effective and enjoyable form of it: over a couple pints at the pub. He thinks a lot about communication and how people do it, and he takes the really long view of human communication and the technology we do it with. He sees humans as naturally social communicators, and the recent media we know as "social media" is only our current effort to use technology to help us communicate. He uses the term "emergent media" to refer to the various social and other new forms of media and the changes, often unforeseen and unintentional, that they bring.

To talk with Jim is to conceptualize media as a growing, changing, mutating, hybridizing family, reforming itself as new technologies become available and are adopted, colonized and appropriated. I was used to thinking about social media as The Big Deal, but after a few minutes with Jim, I realized that people have always been using some kind of social media, and our current examples are just the latest, technology-enabled examples of something that is constantly evolving.

Jim delights in pointing out that media are sometimes designed with one use in mind, yet end up being employed for another, as we humans discover how we prefer to use the technology. Take the the cell phone, for instance, which is now most often used for texting rather than voice, for which it was invented. Or the Internet itself, which began at DARPA as a military tool.

And consider his take on the the vaunted mass media. He sees it as an aberration in the development of media, as a detour in the long and continuing history of human communication. Mass media has actually been around only a century, just a blip in the thousands of years of human communication. He says the era of mass, one-way media was created by the high cost of ownership, the restrictive technology required and government regulation. Mass media distribution was unavailable to most citizens. But humans would (mostly) rather engage in two-way communication (as they have always done) and so are now embracing the many new options of social media. Emergent social media offer ways back to traditional forms of communcation, like conversation and dialogue.

Jim does not claim to know what the future holds, but is sure that the media will continue to evolve to help humans do what they have always enjoyed and needed to do: to talk amongst themselves. -- Bill Paarlberg

The Not-So-New Social/Anti-Social Media

Jim Macnamara"s "Measuring Up"

 

 

Welcome to a new age where media are software and the audiences are the networks.

I don't know about you but, as fascinated as I am with media developments, I am fed up with hearing the term "new media." And I am not too enamored with "social media" either.

What's So New About New Media?

Why? First, because many of the media that we are talking about are increasingly not new. OK, so Web 2.0 has upped the ante with interactivity and participation, but newsgroup chat rooms celebrate their 30th anniversary next year, having been conceived by Duke University graduate students Tom Trucott and Jim Ellis in 1979. The term "Weblog" was created in 1997 and bloggers have been blogging for a decade. Google is into its second decade, celebrating its 10th anniversary as a company in 2008, while MySpace will celebrate its 10th anniversary next year. Even YouTube and FaceBook are three and four years old respectively and, with hundreds of millions of users between them, are hardly new.

Apart from being increasingly inaccurate, the term "new media" leads us to an inevitable terminology trap when the next wave of media developments arrive. Web 3.0 is already under construction and new hybrid forms of media are evolving – what Roger Fidler calls "mediamorphosis." Rather than a choice between "old" or "traditional" and "new" media, which suggests a simple two-horse race, we are living through a period of ongoing media and communications change.

What's So Social About Social Media?

"Social media" is also a problematic term. As much as social networking has wide interpretations and social network mapping is all the rage, "social media" suggests to most that these media are primarily used for chat and gossip, friendship, dating, etcetera. It is this confusion that is causing many businesses to ignore these media or underestimate them. In reality, so-called social networking utilities and social media are making and breaking brands and products every day, building and destroying political careers, and shaping corporate reputations. They are used for civic and political engagement, research, job searching, marketing, shopping, knowledge sharing, and a host of other purposes.

While the U.S. progresses through its primaries in preparation for the November 2008 Presidential election, Australian had a national election in late 2007 which was widely dubbed "the YouTube election," and resulted in a new government. The new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and his party were elected in a landmark campaign spearheaded by Kevin07, a Web-based strategy which extensively used MySpace, blogs, YouTube and other so-called social media. Even though many conservative politicians clung to traditional media advertising -- particularly those who lost the election -- Web 2.0 type media were used for political communication and civic engagement by a large number of both politicians and interest groups.

The U.S. Presidential race is also seeing Web 2.0 media used at an unprecedented level -- even more than in the 2004 election which was described as a critical turning point in media use for political electioneering. (See, for instance, this article, previously in The Measurement Standard.)The term "social media" fails to reflect the serious and substantial communication that is flowing through these channels.

To take the point further, a few hours of research will show that many of the so-called social media are also downright anti-social. Political spoofs and parodies that ridicule, mash-ups of children's nursery rhymes with lyrics replaced by obscenities, and various types of pornography, racism, and other abuses are features and challenges of the Internet and the new forms and genre of media that it facilitates.

What's In a Name?

So what do we call emerging media forms and genre? And is it important what we call them? I suggest it is because our way of describing things frames our understanding. Language limits or delimits the concepts we deal with. It seems clear that we need a review of terminology in relation to media as convergence escalates. In preparing a public lecture which I am due to deliver in June, I compiled a list of 32 different terms used for media today. Many of these are based on delivery systems that are increasingly redundant -- such as film, video tape, broadcast, and so on. Even traditional terms such as "newspapers," "press," "broadcast," "radio" and "television" no longer adequately describe our media, as newspapers are less and less provided on paper, radio programs are increasingly distributed as podcasts rather than broadcasts, and television content is being "transmitted" via the Internet and watched on computers and even hand phones. And "phones" are not phones any more.

The benefit of a review of terminology is that we would find we can dispense with more than half the terms in use and simplify discussion considerably. What does it matter that content is distributed on paper, plastic, magnetic tape or disk, celluloid, cable, broadcast waves, or in jello? Only two things seem to matter: content and users -- whether they are producers or consumers, or a combination of both, as reflected in the terms "prosumers" or "produsers."

This raises three points that I will throw out there for comment. The first observation is that media are becoming immaterial. By that I do not mean that media don't matter per se; I mean the materiality of media is becoming unimportant. With convergence, content pays no mind to the medium on which it is distributed -- nor do most users. In the digital art world, Lev Manovich talks about "post-media" referring to the same notion, so I am not alone in this thinking.

In the same way, hardware technology such as computers and telecommunications networks are disappearing and becoming invisible. The invisible computer was first forecast in 1998 by Donald Norman and research continues through the Disappearing Computer Initiative in the U.S. Similarly, cables and wires are disappearing as we move to wireless. And "logging on," which was an often troublesome ritual that regularly reminded us that we were entering a complex world of machines, is increasingly being replaced with "always on." But it is not only the increasing physical invisibility of hardware that is significant; what is most significant is the growing psychological invisibility of hardware. Today, what Marc Prensky calls "digital natives" and assimilated "digital immigrants" move seamlessly and effortlessly between sources of content without a moment's thought to the hardware infrastructure that delivers them.

Today media are software -- intellectual property in the form of both applications and content. And audiences are the network, actively connecting, linking, redirecting, forwarding, and injecting local comment and static into communications.

Welcome to a new age in which media are software and audiences are the networks.

Dr Jim Macnamara MA, PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC became Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney in late 2007. His 30-year career in journalism, public relations and media research culminated in the 2006 sale of CARMA Asia Pacific, which he founded, to Media Monitors. He worked as Group Research Director with Media Monitors - CARMA Asia Pacific following the sale and continues as a Consultant with the Group.

Public Relations Measurement Technique Sheds Light on Companies' Environmental Reputations

Jim Macnamara's 'Measuring Up'

 

Media Analysis Shows Companies Need to Set
and Achieve Measurable
Climate Change Goals
Environmental performance will be a key driver of reputation.

A major new study of public debate and discussion on energy completed by my company, Media Monitors – CARMA Asia Pacific, presents some important warnings and advice for companies, organizations and governments and concludes that environmental performance is likely to increasingly be a key driver of reputation. We used content analysis to examine statements and commentary by organizations, spokespersons and consumers in leading mainstream media and blogs in Australia and major Asian countries including China, Hong Kong and Singapore.

The analysis covered discussions of nuclear, coal, wind, solar and other alternative sources appearing in more than 1,500 print news articles, radio and TV program segments and 170 blogs appearing between May and July 2007. It focused on Asia Pacific because China is fast becoming the world's leading polluter. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal and uranium, and 16 of 29 nuclear power plants under construction or proposed worldwide are due to come into operation in Asia in the next 10-15 years.

Overall Results:
Companies must achieve measurable targets on the environment or their reputations will suffer.

The report found mild optimism that solutions will be found to balance environmental and economic interests, although serious fears and concerns also abound in relation to safety, the environment and consumer protection.

Specifically of interest to companies and organizations is a finding that they face widespread criticism if they do not implement meaningful measures to reduce carbon emissions. Environmental performance is likely to increasingly be a key driver of reputation, the report says.

The report concluded that companies adopting policies and planning measures to address climate change need to set and achieve significant measurable targets. "Broad unspecific policies and 'aspirational goals' are not going to cut it and may backfire leading to public criticism. There are signs of this already happening," the report warns.

Also:

• Positive messages outweighed negative messages about energy production and use – albeit the margin was narrow. (The analysis examined discussion and comment from the perspective of a balanced position between protecting the environment and maintaining economic development and standards of living.)
• Nuclear energy is the most discussed form of energy and is mired in controversy and near evenly divided opinion for and against, the analysis found. Most opposition and concerns in relation to nuclear power are about safety.
• Solar and wind power are being actively promoted by environmentalists, but are described in most discussions as not being able to make a substantial contribution to energy needs.

Carbon Trading:
Despite a number of initiatives, governments are generally not seen to be doing enough.

Carbon trading is one initiative that is being welcomed by a majority of spokespersons and commentators and is set to become a multi-billion dollar industry over the next few years. However, some are warning that it is still uncertain whether carbon trading will stimulate a net reduction in carbon emissions. Some energy producers and consumer groups have pointed to lessons in Europe where too many permits were issued, resulting in a price collapse below levels necessary to stimulate investment in carbon reducing initiatives.

Also, concerns are being expressed that carbon trading is insufficiently regulated and could lead to scams and fraudulent schemes. One leading environment group has warned that some companies are selling trees without accreditation and that their claims of carbon credits or neutrality are not substantiated. Consumer groups are also expressing concern that consumers may be paying levies and surcharges with no guarantee that their money will be used to address climate change.

The report says:

"While the efforts of some companies to reduce their carbon footprint may be commendable and genuine, there is considerable concern over a lack of safeguards for consumers on how extra charges will be used and whether they will reduce carbon emissions... With carbon trading set to become the next big thing in the financial world, strict regulation of the carbon trading industry, including accreditation and monitoring of carbon offset providers, is seen as necessary to avoid scams and corruption... and to ensure that offsets are real and effective."

Clean coal technology (CCT) is also creating some optimism that a balance can be achieved between reducing greenhouse gases and continuing to exploit vast coal reserves. However, environmental groups and some commentators are cynical, pointing out that the technology is still unproven.

Blog Analysis

Blogs were found to be more unfavorable than mainstream media coverage (48% unfavorable compared with 30% of mainstream media content unfavorable). However, 30% of blog discussion was favorable. While much of this was supportive of renewable forms of energy, some bloggers support clean coal technology and carbon trading – albeit with the same concerns as mainstream media commentators and spokespersons.

Analysis also showed that bloggers often include scientists and technical experts and, therefore, blogs need to be recognized as an increasingly important medium, reflecting the viewpoints of influencers and thought-leaders.

Dr. Jim Macnamara BA, MA, PhD is Group Research Director with Media Monitors – CARMA Asia Pacific which conducts media monitoring, media analysis, e-surveys, reputation research and sponsorship analysis. He has a 30-year career in the media and PR in Asia Pacific and is the author of 11 books on media and communication. In August 2007 he was appointed Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology, Sydney.

Two Keys To Better Sponsorship Measurement

Jim Macnamara's 'Measuring Up'

 

 

Two Keys to Better
Sponsorship Measurement
Be clear on your objectives, and measure outputs, outtakes and outcomes.

While much of the urging for better measurement focuses on public relations, another area of below-the-line (i.e., non-advertising) corporate and marketing communications that is often poorly measured is sponsorship. In some cases, sponsorships are managed as part of PR and corporate communication, while in other situations they are the responsibility of advertising or marketing departments. Irrespective, in most cases sponsorships are inadequately measured – and sometimes not at all.

Sponsorships are deserving of particular attention in the measurement debate as many involve large budgets, often in the millions of dollars. Added to cash contributions is expenditure on support materials and often large amounts of staff time. Some sponsorship experts recommend multiplying the cash outlay for sponsorships by two to calculate the total cost to a sponsor.

So how should we measure sponsorships? Like other corporate and marketing communications, there are a number of approaches. But the same number one golden rule applies: Set clear objectives and measure against them.