The Measurement Standard: Blog Edition

Forget The Wish List – Make a 2013 ‘To Do’ List

  Jim Macnamara’s ‘Measuring Up’

Success in the business of communication is more about to-do lists than wish lists: Make change happen

Christmas and New Year are times for reflection and contemplation of the future. We look back over the year gone – or the many years gone in my case – and make promises and commitments to ourselves and others for the future. In the lead up to Christmas, our thinking centres on a wish list – all those things we want and hope for under the tree. Then there’s New Year which brings out resolutions as well as further indulgence in wishfulness.

Time to Get Beyond Ethnocentric Globalization: Four Steps to Get Started

Being international means living and working as citizens of the world. Here are four practical steps to get started.

 Jim Macnamara’s ‘Measuring Up’

 

 

Globalization is a well-worn cliché, a truism of the twentieth and twenty-first century – although it has been happening since traders plied the Silk Route across Africa and Asia from around 200 BCE and Marco Polo opened up ocean trade routes between Europe and the ‘Far East’ in the thirteenth century. It probably started when the first homo sapiens migrated out of Africa.

The MacDonaldization of the world

But when we think globalization today, major Western countries mostly think of exporting Western products and ways of doing things to other countries. And when we think ‘international’, Western countries have for centuries seen themselves at the centre of human civilization. The very term ‘Far East’ reflects this ethnocentrism. For centuries, Asia was an exotic strange place far to the east of the centre of industry and culture. Africa was ‘the dark continent’ and the Middle East – well, it is still seen in generalized and mostly negative stereotypes.

Never mind that China was an advanced civilization outpacing the rest of the world in the arts and science for centuries, inventing the printing press more than 400 years before Gutenberg, as well as inventing paper (around 1150), paper money, gunpowder, fireworks, and credit banking. Never mind that Egypt was a great civilization almost 3,000 years BCE. Never mind that the cradle of human civilization was Africa.

Media and communication are key sites of modern globalization. Hollywood has dominated the movie industry since the 1920s, American networks and publishers own the largest media empires on the planet, and US, British and Euro marketing drive the major economies of the world. For decades TV commercials around the globe have been narrated in mainly American accents. McDonaldization has become a verb in the English language.

The natives need to be educated and civilized

Marketers have neatly segmented the world as the US, UK and then a series of broad groupings of other countries and even whole continents such as EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) or, worse, just ‘ROW’ (Rest of the World). For years, I have lived and worked in ROW. I guess that makes me a Rower or a Rowian!

In doing marketing and PR in far flung country and regional offices, this has meant that doing things the ‘right way’ was doing them the head office way – with head office being back in New York, or London, or some other North American or European metropolis. The ‘natives’ needed to be educated and civilized, which was undertaken with near missionary zeal.

The ‘big White men’ who clocked up frequent flyer miles carrying out this economic and cultural colonization of hapless developing markets (and they have been mostly men and mostly big from all that five-star hotel living) are referred to in country and regional offices as ‘seagulls’ – “they fly in, s*** on everything, and then fly home”.

 The market has moved to the rest of the world -- especially on the internet

This Western ethnocentric trend has continued into the 21^st century in the age of the internet. When I wrote The 21^st Century Media (R)evolution in 2010, a book on social media and emerging communication practices, two major North American publishers politely but firmly rejected the book saying “it was not American enough”. I tried to explain that this was the point. The big action in relation to the internet – and increasingly in other industries as well – is outside North America, the UK and the major developed European countries.

For instance, at the beginning of 2012, China had 513 million internet users, according to an annual report issued by the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). While this puts the country’s internet penetration at 38% of the total population – well behind the US and other developed countries – China is now the largest internet market in the world.

A report by the Boston Consulting Group released in April estimates that Chinese internet users will exceed 700 million by 2015 which will be almost double the number of internet users in the US and Japan combined (estimated to total 360 million by 2015, ZDNet). Some analysts say these figures are inflated. However, note that the 2013 meeting of ICANN, the international body tasked with overseeing administration of the internet, will take place in Beijing. Slowly the message is sinking in.

In terms of the percentage of population online, Scandinavian countries and Australia far outstrip North America and Europe. The latest Internet World Statistics show that Australia has 90% internet penetration, compared with 78% in the US and 84% in the UK.

Also, Australia has the highest average time per person online, according to Nielsen research, with the average Australian spending nearly seven hours a day on social media sites, compared with just over six hours a day in the US and UK.

When we talk of leading search engines and social networks, Google and Facebook do lead the pack globally and YouTube is a phenomenon with four billion videos a day being viewed. But along with these well-known Western names, leading social media today include QZone in China with almost 500 million registered users; Tudou and Youku which rival YouTube in popularity in China; Ren Ren which is a Chinese Facebook equivalent; microblogging sites such as Sina Weibo and Tencent Weibo (weibo means microblog in Chinese); Cyworld in South Korea; and a whole host of other emerging media and networks.

Industry and the professions are similarly growing and evolving rapidly in many parts of the world – and not always as copycats of Western markets, but in their own unique ways embedded in local cultures, political, and economic systems, some of which have existed for centuries and even millennia.

Four tactics to become more international

What’s the point of all this? It is simply to remind ourselves that ‘international’ is not a collection of unfortunate foreign places waiting to be civilized and turned into little Manhattans or LAs, or little Londons or Munichs. Being international and going global mean living and working beyond the borders (and cultures and worldviews) of single nation states as citizens of the world, understanding, respecting, and embracing others in mutual exchange and for mutual benefits.

How do we do that at a practical level? It starts with an attitude of being open to others’ views and ideas. Here are four practical steps to internationalise.

1. Involve overseas partners and international affiliates. Really listen to them.
2. Implement cultural as well as technical training of senior staff.
3. Visit other places for more than a few days. And when you do, get outside the five-star hotels and tourist spots.
4. If you claim to be global, live up to that claim in terms of representation and focus.

Here's a case in point: The Public Relations Leadership Forum in Chicago next month is billed as representing “communication managers at Global 1000 companies” and claims to develop the future leaders of public relations and communication. But I couldn’t see one non-American speaker on the program.

Thanks for giving this ‘Rowian’ a voice here.

 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. 

###

You Want Engagement and Relationships? Listen Up!

Jim Macnamara’s Measuring Up

Seeking engagement without listening most often creates the reverse effect: disengagement and dissatisfaction.

IN PR MEASUREMENT, BUZZWORDS CONTINUE TO FLY like confetti at a gipsy wedding. Nevertheless, we are witnessing a positive shift in focus from low-level input and output metrics such as tone or sentiment of media coverage to more outcome-orientated concepts such as influence and relationships – although even these are no guarantee of desired behaviour.

The latest term to be elevated to the status of PR measurement’s Holy Grail is engagement. In an Institute for Public Relations Research Conversation late last year, Gary Gates said “the Holy Grail for global business executives today is employee engagement.” More broadly, Richard Edelman used the IPR’s 50th Annual Distinguished Lecture in November 2011 to call for 'public engagement’ to become the standard for PR effectiveness.

Engagement: The mobilizing force that triggers behaviour

This argument is well grounded in organisational psychology and sociopsychology. Along with two other cornerstones of behavioural influence, satisfaction and trust, engagement is a third key influence on human behaviour and relationships. While at least basic levels of satisfaction and trust are fundamental prerequisites to all buyer and audience behaviour, engagement could be said to be the mobilizing force that triggers behaviour. Satisfaction and trust can be passive and remain attitudinal; engagement provides the ‘tipping point’ to create action.

But engagement is superficially understood and inappropriately measured in PR and in most advertising and marketing. Clickthroughs, views, downloads, friending, liking, joining circles, tagging, bookmarking, voting, and even posting comments are not engagement. They may be early signs of potential engagement, but engagement is a much deeper psychological concept than these simple actions that psychologists call “fragments of behaviour.”

Three key elements of engagement

Research in organisational psychology and sociopsychology points to three key elements of engagement – two of which are well-understood and applied in advertising and marketing but one of which is poorly understood and little applied in most public communication.

While over-simplifying a large body of research, the three key elements of engagement can be broadly understood as:

1. establishing a cognitive psychological bond;
2. establishing an emotional connection or response; and
3. empowering participants.

A cognitive psychological bond is built by getting audiences to think about something, either in a deep rational way or through what are called ‘mental shortcuts’ such as relying on an authority figure or trusted source. An emotional response is typically triggered through creating pleasure, fun or appealing to emotions to cause feelings such as liking, laughter or sympathy. The advertising industry exploits this dimension regularly with images of cute puppies used to sell toilet paper and popular music used to sell a range of products.

But what about the ‘big Es’: empowerment that triggers engagement? How do we reach this level with target audiences?

The three most effective ways to truly engage people are:

1. Allowing and encouraging them to participate in something;
2. Giving them a say – that is, allowing others to have a voice; and
3. Listening to them.

This is where most organisations – both companies and government bodies – fall down in a big way, even in interactive social media which offer increased opportunities for engagement.

Politicians, governments, and businesses are not listening

Apart from some notable elements of the 2008 Obama presidential campaign, most political campaigns trying to engage voters are dominated by parties and candidates talking, with very little affordance of voice to citizens and very little listening to them. For instance, despite some success in engaging citizens online in the 2008 campaign, the 2010 US mid-terms saw 76 per cent of political tweets being one-way dissemination of information about candidates or their campaign, according to a yet-to-be-published research report which described the mid-terms as “a wasted opportunity” for engagement.

In the 2010 UK election, Rachel Gibson and colleagues from the University of Manchester reported that UK political leaders and organisations engaged primarily in “broadcasting their messages and not listening or engaging in dialogue.” Similarly, in a detailed content analysis of all Twitter accounts, Facebook profiles, and blog posts of Australian politicians and political parties in the late  2010 Australian federal election, I found all but one politician engaged primarily in broadcasting messages and seeking followers, with very few responses, direct messages, and following of others. The Leader of the Opposition, for example, followed only 20 people, while he and his staff sought a large volume of followers.

Business does not appear to be engaging any better than politicians. A 2012 study by social media research firm SR7 reported that among 100 leading retail and service companies, only 68 per cent responded to inquiries made on their own Facebook page and only 25 per cent responded to inquiries submitted via Twitter.

Even online sites set up specifically for engaging citizens, such as public consultation sites established by government, mostly fail when it comes to the third element of empowering and engaging – listening. Research that I have undertaken into online public consultation sites shows that most hosts do not allocate any additional staff or use tools such as monitoring and alert systems to listen to public comments. Large-scale listening, such as when hundreds or thousands of comments are received, usually also requires systems such as automated acknowledgements and text analysis software to identify key issues and themes.

The architecture and work of listening

This has led me to conclude that two important missing elements in most corporate and organisational communication are:

(1) having an architecture of listening; and

(2) being prepared to do the work of listening.

Most organisations have a substantial ‘architecture of talking,’ such as large advertising budgets, active PR departments, Web sites, numerous publications, and so on. And most work is focussed on maximising the organisation’s voice. Analyses of organisational structures and resources show that most have minimal and sometimes almost non-existent resources for listening.

Seeking engagement without giving others a chance to participate and have a say, and listening to them, is futile and most often creates the reverse effect – disengagement and dissatisfaction. If you don’t believe me, try it with your wife, husband, partner, children and/or friends.

*****

Jim Macnamara PhD, FPRIA, FAMI, CPM, FAMEC is Professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney, a post he took up 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 is the author of 12 books including The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices published by Peter Lang, New York in 2010 and Public Relations Theories, Practices, Critiques published by Pearson Australia in 2012.

3 Reasons Why It’s Profitable for PR to Look at Not-For-Profit

Jim Macnamara’s Measuring Up

Non-profit public relations, often marginalized, deserves recognition as being innovative and easier to measure. Plus, they are the good guys.

The non-for-profit (NFP) sector is often seen as existing on the periphery of the professional public relations industry, overlooked in many discussions and marginalised in both professional and academic discourse about public relations. That is not to say that PR is not actively deployed in the NFP sector – it is, by thousands of dedicated practitioners. But their budgets are small and in discussions about PR the bulk of attention goes to the big budget business sector, the similarly large government sector, and high profile consultancies. 

Meanwhile, the not-for-profit sector works quietly in the background, taking an ever-increasing role in supporting sectors of society and achieving social, cultural and political objectives.

There are three reasons that the PR industry should focus greater attention on the not-for-profit sector.

Not-for-profit organisations are the good guys.

NFP organisations are engaged in community service, such as providing support to disadvantaged groups, as well as managing cultural institutions. If ever PR wanted sites and examples to show that it can contribute positively to society, the non-for-profit sector provides these.

While PR combats a ‘cringe factor’ every time big business and corporations blot their copybook with yet another financial or environmental disaster, not-for-profit organisations and their communicators contribute positively to society. They attract blood donations for the Red Cross which can literally save lives; they distribute aid to impoverished and disaster-affected people; they help the homeless and the needy; they save animals; and the protect the planet. Without communication these organisations would fail to attract donations and volunteers and be unknown.

Why hasn’t someone written a book focusing specifically on communication campaigns that help make the world a better place? Perhaps they have, but I don’t see it on the lists of text books or promoted by the industry. Most often, PR is portrayed as disreputable, as in books such as Stauber and Rampton’s Toxic Sludge is Good for You and Stuart Ewen’s PR! A Social History of Spin, TV shows such as Spin City and movies such as Thank you for Smoking.

NFP PR is not lost in the mix.

Second, NFP organisations usually do not have budgets for advertising or paid promotions. They tend to rely on ‘below the line’ public relations strategies. This means that the outcomes of public communication are not complexly interwoven with other influences as they are in the case of integrated campaigns. Causation – one of the major challenges for evaluation research – is much easier to show and attribute to PR in many NFP public communication programs. With evaluation of its contribution a continuing challenge, PR could learn some valuable lessons and gain useful case studies from the NFP sector. For instance, an international aid organisation found that when it decreased PR activities to create public awareness of relief operations, both donations and volunteerism decreased. Conversely, when it increased publicity, Web site promotion and public presentations about its aid programs (with no advertising or other influences evident), donations flowed in and volunteers came forward in increased numbers.

Scant resources frequently leads to innovation.

Third, the aphorism ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ is often demonstrated in the not-for-profit sector. With scant resources in most cases, not-for-profit organisations and their communicators regularly develop innovative approaches that, far from being the ‘long tail’ of PR, are at the forefront of the bell curve. For instance, in undertaking research in 2009 and 2010 into uses of social media, cultural institutions and some not-for-profit organisations emerged as the most innovative in creating true community engagement and two-way communication. One war museum posted old archive photographs of unnamed dead soldiers on a ‘Commons’ Web site and invited people worldwide to participate in its historical records construction. The result was the successful identification of many ‘lost’ soldiers, emotional closure and copies of important mementos for many families, and a contribution to history. 

This is not to simply sing the praises of not-for-profit groups or eulogise them over other fields of PR practice. It is to enjoin in this themed issue of The Measurement Standard in calling for a greater focus on not-for-profit PR. Rather than see NFP PR as the ‘green fringe,’ ‘tree-huggers,’ and socialists of the industry, our colleagues in this field should be brought into the mainstream. NFP PR could take centre stage as evidence of public relations contributing a societal good and some of our best NFP practitioners and case studies could be put in front of corporations as examples of how they could contribute more to society, enhancing their reputation and community engagement in the process.

*****
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 is the author of 12 books including The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices published by Peter Lang, New York in 2010.

Beware Measurement Beauty Cream

Jim Macnamara’s Measuring Up

Public relations measurement and social media measurement tools and services are a bit like beauty creams. They make bold claims to bring us admiration, perfect relationships, and even eternal youth and fame, but they are largely pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and fail to deliver what they promise.

It seems that every day a new measurement tool or service arrives in the marketplace with much fanfare and a promise that it will provide the ultimate metric which will ensure us of the enduring gratitude of management and a competitive edge over our peers. Often these products and services are described with new buzzwords and some are hidden in a “black box” of software or the internal systems of service providers – a little bit like “anti-oxidant cream with hypotrichloride, X-enzyme, and diocryptin.” 

A feature of ethical research is transparency and disclosure of the methodology used. This principle does clash with commercial requirements to protect IP. But researchers should at least divulge the broad outline and key steps of their methodology. If they don’t, they’re probably applying beauty cream to your communication campaigns.

Apart from the term “buzz” itself – which is an ill-defined and imprecise notion – some of the key buzzwords deployed in measurement are sentiment, engagement, impact, and influence. These are fine – if what is being measured is what it purports to be. However, a review of PR measurement marketing materials shows that many of these terms are used inappropriately and measure the wrong thing, or misrepresent what they actually measure.

Getting sentimental about sentiment

For instance, sentiment is defined in Webster’s Online Dictionary as “thought prompted by passion or feeling; a state of mind; feeling toward some person or thing; disposition prompting action or expression.” In simple terms, sentiment is an emotional or cognitive response in people’s heads. Therefore, it cannot be measured from a page of text using content analysis – and certainly not by automated machine measurement. Yet, frequently we are told that certain software systems and content analysis services measure sentiment.

“It’s bollocks,” as the British say.

Sentiment is human feelings – quite a different thing from the tone of media content. We have to measure what we say we are measuring, and then use the right method.

Celebrating engagement

Another key term that is used and abused is “engagement.” The difficulty with engagement is that it covers a wide range of responses, from the most basic human motor functions through a number of psychological levels such as involvement and elaboration, to various behaviours. These also span a wide range from simple actions such as clicking a mouse to becoming an evangelist for a product or cause. 

Some measurement systems and services count click-throughs as engagement. In a very minor way, people clicking on a page or image is engagement. But they may hate it when they get there. Other measurement approaches count any form of response as engagement – such as commenting, rating, or entering contact details. But if the comment made or the rating given is negative, or contact details are given in order to complain, this is hardly a desirable form of engagement.

Serious social researchers know that qualitative information is very important; quantitative data only tells part of the story. Also they know that higher levels of engagement are important, rather than measures of how many people clicked on your site and then went to have a coffee and forgot about it. Higher levels of engagement that tell us much more than clicks, views, or even downloads include positive comments, ratings, and reviews, recommendations, requests for more information, subscribing, trialling, and so on. Measurement should clearly identify what type of engagement is evaluated and focus higher up the cognitive and behavioural engagement scale.

The big Is of measurement – Impact and Influence

Impact and influence are in the Miss World league of measurement – the ultimate prize to claim in the PR beauty stakes. So they are among the hottest buzzwords around the measurement world. Like sentiment, impact and influence can be affective (i.e., emotional). However, importantly, impact and influence go beyond sentiment in that they can be cognitive or behavioural change caused among people – ideally the ones you want to impact and influence. 

But most forms and elements of impact and influence exist in people’s minds. Even when behaviour occurs, proof of causation (whether your communication caused the behaviour or whether it was a result of something else) requires investigation of affective and/or cognitive processes. These processes, and therefore outcomes such as impact and influence, cannot be measured by counting, scaling, scoring media texts, or crunching Web analytics. Yet some measurement tools and services claim to demonstrate impact and/or influence by making large leaps in logic from basic quantitative data such as volumes of clicks, clusters on social network maps, or low-level audience engagement. While key hubs and nodes in networks and audience engagement can give useful indicators of potential influence, they are what they are. 

As one social researcher bluntly says:

“If you wanna know what people are thinking and feeling, you gotta get off your butt and your computer and go out and ask them.”

This leads to one of the great ironies of PR measurement. Thousands of practitioners are looking for solutions and hundreds of service and product providers are engaged in trying to develop the “next big thing.” Yet a suite of proven social science research methods have existed and been used productively for more than a century. Interviews, focus groups, surveys, and ethnography are well-established, reliable, and insightful research methods that are passed over by many practitioners in their techno-fetishism to find a new PR metric that measures everything (ideally with positive results). 

That is not to say that innovation is not important. New developments in research such as netnography build on the foundations of ethnography (observation of behaviour) by adding online behavioural tracking. E-surveys make audience research easier, faster, and lower cost. Web 2.0 media offer many opportunities for listening, not just talking. Tracking and evaluating what people are thinking, feeling, saying, and doing is available for free every day if we listen. Web analytics do productively contribute to the stock of quantitative data for tracking audience reactions in the “blind spot” between distribution of outputs and outcomes. And content analysis, including some automated functions, helps us understand the vast amount of information that exists and continues to grow. 

So computers and clever algorithms have an important role. But they are tools we use to help us understand human behaviour – and only that. No single metric or simplistic measure that purports to demonstrate sentiment, engagement, impact, or influence can explain human emotions, cognition, or behaviour.

Similar caution needs to be applied in examining other metrics in the PR measurement space such as media score, weighted media score, media index, and similar buzzwords. With many, you may as well multiply column inches of media coverage by your weight and divide by your age and call it your personal “PR power.”

I’ve tried lots of beauty creams in my time – and none of them worked.

###

 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 is the author of 12 books including The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices published by Peter Lang, New York in 2010.

Three Thresholds to PR’s Future: Measure, Relate, and Be Social

Jim Macnamara’s ‘Measuring Up’

I couldn’t miss writing an article for this, the 100th issue of The Measurement Standard. This publication has been an industry flag-waver for accountable, measurable public relations and professionalization over the past eight years or so—sometimes a solitary voice, but increasingly part of a growing movement.

So now is an appropriate time to reflect on the recent past. In my hot Down Under summer reveries, I see PR poised at three major thresholds as it enters the 20-teens:

1. Measurement Has Arrived

In the past 12 months, a number of landmark decisions and initiatives have occurred around the world that have put measurement of public relations on the front pages of industry journals and hopefully put practitioners on the front foot rather than dragging their feet. It is about time. And it’s welcome justification for the group of nags (including those of us who write in this publication) who have been harping about measurement for “yonks.” (Another of my Aussie terms, meaning a “bloody long time.”)

How to Evaluate Events: Does Your Show Have Go?

Jim Macnamara’s ‘Measuring Up’

Evaluate events with these sample objectives, measurement metrics, and corresponding measurement methods.

When Web analytics showed that the most popular articles in The Measurement Standard are those about how to measure events, I was a little surprised for two reasons. First, even though events involve creativity and can have strategic objectives, the bulk of event management involves technical and administrative skills rather than strategic public relations expertise. In the typology of public relations roles identified by PR scholars Glen Broom and David Dozier, organising and running events mostly sits within the technician role rather than the manager role. Second, of all the challenges in public relations measurement, event measurement is relatively straight-forward compared with the intricacies of some other aspects of PR.

Still, events such as launches, conferences, seminars, exhibitions, open days, and so on are a part of many public relations programs and, as such, should be measured.

Getting the Show on the Road: Clear Strategic Objectives

At a basic level, those who run events judge their success simply by getting the show on the road and the size of the crowd that turns up. However, at a management level, the success or otherwise of events should be measured in more strategic terms. How?

Like all measurement, evaluation of events starts with objectives. Why is the event being staged? Events should have clear strategic objectives that serve the overall objectives of the organisation. For instance, events may be staged to:

• Create awareness of some new product or service;
• Generate leads of interested people for sales follow-up;
• Build relationships with key stakeholders; or
• Provide experiential contact such as demonstrations and hands-on trialling at trade shows and exhibitions to generate interest.

Without clear objectives, it is impossible to measure the success of events. With clear objectives, the metrics required are clearly mapped out.

What to Measure: Inputs, Outputs, and Outcomes

It is important also to remember that measurement can be done at input, output, and outcome levels. That is, you may want to do some research before or during planning of the event to gain information about what your target audience wants and expects:

• Input level measurement helps you plan the event and increases your chances of achieving your desired outputs and outcomes.
• In terms of outputs, measurement can identify the number of attendees and the percentage who were satisfied with the event itself (e.g. was it interesting and useful).
• Finally, and ultimately, outcomes evaluation should focus on attitudinal and behavioural effects such as awareness of products or services created, leads gained, relationship improvement, and so on.

Some sample event objectives, measurement metrics, and corresponding measurement methods are suggested in the following table:

Low Cost or No Cost

What is noteworthy about the possible measurement methods in this table is that a number of them are either low cost or even no cost. Simple survey questionnaires to gain satisfaction ratings can be designed and printed in-house, or distributed by e-mail. Also, some measurement can be leveraged from existing research such as annual brand or reputation surveys simply by including a question to measure the extent to which events contributed to respondents’ awareness and perceptions.

It is necessary to note that outcomes such as relationships are the result of multiple influences beyond your event and even beyond communication. However, effective communication is one of the key ‘antecedents’ (i.e. contributions) to relationships, so quantifying that contribution is important in linking PR activities to organisational objectives.

The more difficult aspects of public relations to measure are its long-term effects; the value it provides in avoidance of criticism and crises; and its contribution to outcomes in integrated campaigns when the contribution of PR is hard to isolate. But as for events, break a leg.

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.

Jim Macnamara's new book, The 21st Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices is published by Peter Lang, New York. For details, reviews and orders go direct to the Peter Lang sales site, or order through www.amazon.com.

The Three Rs of Public Relations Measurement: Relevant Reliable Research

 Jim Macnamara’s ‘Measuring Up’ 

School educators note the importance of the ‘three Rs,’ which they list as “reading, ’riting, and ’rithmatic” – and the way these are often spelled is intentional to indicate that many students and even graduates are not very good at most of them.

This is a useful prompt to reflect on what might comprise the three Rs of public relations and communication measurement. The ‘bean counters’ with finance and accounts backgrounds will immediately nominate ‘ROI’ for alphabetical canonization. Trouble is they mean DROI – dollars returned on investment or, even more narrowly, dollars returned on dollars invested (DRODI). Bean counters can’t spell, or understand PR. Their only unit of measurement is dollars, so they do not understand other forms of cost and others types of returns. Five thousand protestors pounding at the gates and three TV networks in the foyer do not register on the Richter scale of the ROIs.

“Two common misconceptions are that research is all about statistics and that research is accurate. Very little if any research is accurate.”

Politicians mostly have one R word uppermost in their minds that guides their communication and measurement – ‘re-election’. Newspaper editors and marketing departments are nervously focused on ‘readership’, hoping to avoid another big R word, receivership. HR people say communication and measurement are all about ‘retention’. Those who promote environmentalism cleverly created their own three Rs – ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ – as specific goals and metrics which identify success. 

Immediately, these few examples illustrate that different people want different results from communication.

The Research Rs

Researchers who spend their life measuring things also have a number of pet R words such as ‘rigor’, ‘reliability’ and ‘replicability’. Rigor and reliability, in particular, are emphasized by researchers, but these are mistakenly seen by some practitioners as the same as statistical accuracy. Two common misconceptions are that research is all about statistics and that research is accurate. Very little if any research is accurate. Even the most mathematically precise research usually has a 10 per cent error rate or more. And some methods of research do not use statistics or strive for accuracy at all.

Rigor and reliability refer to following systematic procedures, and these procedures vary between quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. In quantitative research, collected data are analysed statistically, as the purpose is to identify averages (i.e. means), medians, and modes, as well as total numbers in various categories. However, in qualitative research the objective is to intentionally identify and study the breadth and diversity of responses – not to narrow them down to averages – and to explore emotional, perceptual, and attitudinal responses that cannot be expressed fully in numbers. No one method is preferable in all circumstances and no one approach is superior. Most researchers see benefits in both quantitative and qualitative research and each provides some answers to different types of questions.

Reliability

While there is no 100 per cent accuracy in research, reliability must be one of the three Rs of measurement. In quantitative research, reliability is calculated statistically based on the size of samples and calculations such as standard deviation, while in qualitative research reliability is an overall result of following valid systematic procedures. In measurement such as content analysis, for example, reliable methods require use of coding guidelines, multiple coders, and the conduct of intercoder reliability assessment in which a sub-sample of content is coded by more than one coder and their coding compared. Wide variation is addressed by rejecting the data as unreliable, rebriefing the coders, and retraining if necessary.

Research

Practitioners need to recognize that if trained researchers following systematic procedures end up with variations and error rates, what is certain is that measurement methods that do not employ established research methods and procedures will have far wider margins of error and variation. Hence, another of the three Rs of measurement is to use established research procedures, methods, and scales – not made-up scales and concocted metrics. 

Relevant

However, there is another R word that is even more important than reliability and research. The most important criteria of any measurement is that it must be relevant. When measuring a function that has relations in its name – such as public relations, stakeholder relations, community relations, shareholder relations, media relations, and so on – it should be fairly obvious that the focus of measurement should be the state of those relations (i.e. relationships). Measuring organisational relationships in terms of dollars paid or received is as insensitive and inappropriate as measuring other relationships such as one’s marriage, love life, or family connections in monetary terms. 

Similarly, if the objective of a communication program is to create awareness of something, awareness is the relevant variable that should be measured.  If a behavioural outcome is the objective of communication, incidence of the specific behaviour sought is what should be measured. This may include inquiries generated, registrations received (e.g. for an event or subscribing), trialling, purchasing a product or service, or a range of other behaviours such as starting a fitness program, giving up smoking, driving more attentively, and so on.

This key R word – that measurement must be ‘relevant’ to particular functions, particular programs, and particular objectives, is why a single PR metric or even a single measurement standard is not only unlikely to be achievable, but also it would be counter-productive and restrictive if ever realized. However, there is a range of reliable research methods available that meet a wide range of needs – what I call a measurement toolbox.

So, the three Rs of measurement, and the key to public relations gaining the professional respect that it has long sought are, in reverse order: Relevant Reliable Research.

 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. 

P(R)evolution

Jim Macnamara’s ‘Measuring Up’

Three revolutionary characteristics of social media.

I come to this issue of The Measurement Standard excited and with nervous anticipation. After 18 months of research, I have an 400-page book being launched worldwide this month by Peter Lang, New York, titled The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices.

(The 21st Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices is published by Peter Lang, New York. For details, reviews and orders go direct to the Peter Lang sales site, or order through www.amazon.com.)

The title says three important things about Web 2.0/3.0-based social media, based on extensive research in the US, UK, Europe, Australia, China, Korea, Malaysia, and the Middle East.

First, what is happening online is arguably the fourth media revolution.

The book title uses the term "(r)evolution" not to be academically clever or ambiguous, but to illustrate that the research asked the question of whether what is happening is simply evolution in media and communication, or whether it is something bigger. Scholars describe the development of writing around 3,000-4,000 BC as the first revolution in media. Invention of the printing press in China around 1000 AD and in Europe in 1450 was the second, followed by the development of broadcasting (radio and TV) in the early to mid-20th century.

My research indicates that what is happening is not simply an evolution in media and public communication – rather, radical change is afoot and will reverberate through media, advertising, journalism, public relations and politics for some time to come.

However, Web 2.0 and even the emerging Web 3.0, and the social media that they enable, are not a technological revolution as often claimed. Blogs, microblogging, wikis, and social networks are not new or cutting edge technologically. They all sit on the Web which is 20 years old. The first blogs and social networks started 10-15 years ago. And most applications leading the revolution were created by university students for free – e.g. Facebook and even Google.

My second key finding is that what distinguishes the early 21st century media revolution is a major change in the practices of public communication.

In simple terms, the revolution is about how we use media and public communication – who speaks, how they speak, and what they are able to speak about.

The late 19th and 20th centuries were dominated by mass media and mass communication that predominantly involved top-down, one-way distribution of information to ‘audiences’ which, in the main, had to passively accept what was given to them. Also, in the mass media model, organisations controlled the messages distributed.

This has completely changed with development of Web 2.0-based social media. As well as experiencing convergence, which refers to the technological coming together of media platforms and content on the Internet as discussed by Henry Jenkins, we are seeing emergence in media and public communication practices.

Emergence is the third key point of my book and a highly significant change.

"Emergent," in scientific terms, refers to change that is bottom-up rather than top-down, self-organising rather than centrally organised, and which unexpectedly leads to new sustainable systems despite a lack of central or hierarchal control. This is what is happening in media and public communication. Social media including blogs, microblogging such as Twitter, social networks, and photo and video sharing sites such as Flickr, YouTube and Tudou in China are a user-led revolution in media and public communication centred on bottom-up and peer-to-peer communication.

As a result, it is impossible to control messages and communication in social media – something that many CEOs, marketing directors, advertising agencies and PR practitioners have yet to get their heads around.

My research identified eight C words that are characteristics of the 21st century mediascape:

• connectivity (rapidly approaching ubiquity),
• communities,
• co-creativity,
• collaboration,
• collective intelligence,
• communication (two-way not one-way),
• conducted as...
• conversation – that is, open discussion that is authentic, not speeches, lectures, political propaganda, ‘spin’, or corporate-speak.

New challenges for public relations...

As a major discipline within public communication, public relations needs to look beyond the so-called ‘new media’ and new technologies and understand the conventions and protocols of the new practices of public communication. PR practitioners need to develop new skills, such as how to enter conversations online to represent their organisations, correct inaccurate information, and defend criticisms. This requires new ways of talking and new ways of listening.

They need to learn to write all over again in a new style that is very different to news releases, brochures, annual reports, speeches and journalism. They need to re-learn media relations. Their traditional media databases will no longer give them the contacts they need to get their message out. They need to convince their management to give up the illusion of control and engage in open dialogue. They need to ease off on the slick imagery and focus on authenticity.

...and for advertising and elsewhere.

If it is any consolation, public relations is not the only area of public communication that is facing major change. Advertising is facing growing resistance to intrusive mass-targeted formats and the ‘rivers of gold’ of classifieds have been lost to Craiglist and eBay. Journalism is being redefined; and media business models need to be substantially restructured. The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices includes chapters looking at the future of journalism, the future of advertising, future media business models, and the future of politics, as well as the future of public relations and the impact on societies generally.

Importantly, all revolutions bring opportunities as well as some pain. Research confirms that social media provide ways for companies and organisations to engage with key publics, build relationships, become part of communities, reach new audiences, gain low-cost and no-cost market research; and it is much more targeted and measurable than mass communication.

The 21st Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices is published by Peter Lang, New York. For details, reviews and orders go direct to the Peter Lang sales site, or order through www.amazon.com.

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 Rise of the Phoenix

Jim Macnamara's ‘Measuring Up'

Out of the ashes of the Global Financial Crisis, collapsing newspapers, and falling TV viewership rise new media opportunities. Also, news from FIBEP 2009.

I was pleased to be invited to address the 2009 World Congress of the Federation Internationale des Bureaux d'Extraits de Presse (FIBEP) in Buenos Aires in mid-October. Even though, unfortunately, that meant missing the IPR Summit on Measurement because of a clash of dates.

FIBEP is a significant organisation and the UK-initiated Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) is seeking closer ties with the group. FIBEP is the international organisation representing more than 90 media monitoring firms worldwide, many of which now also do media analysis.

A very significant resolution passed at the Congress was to enter into a cooperative relationship with AMEC. Hopefully the Institute for Public Relations in the U.S. will extend its dialogue and cooperation with FIBEP as well. If these three organisations -- AMEC, IPR, and FIBEP -- get their heads together, we may finally get some real progress on PR measurement standards. Dialogue across the media monitoring and analysis market will help bring consistency and standards to PR measurement.

At the Congress I spoke about the importance of analysis in providing clients with interpretation and insights, rather than raw data in the form of press clippings and transcripts. The theme of my address was the Phoenix, of Phoenician, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Indian, and Asian legend: The mythical bird that appears to die a fiery death but rises to live another 500 years.

One of the big questions facing media monitoring and media analysis companies is whether traditional mass media will die. In that regard, I cited the fallacy of endism and pointed to flawed predictions of the end of television by George Gilder in 1994, and doubts over Philip Meyer's prediction of the end of newspapers.

Change, yes. But the introduction of radio did not see the end of newspapers. The introduction of television did not see the end of radio or press. Similarly, the introduction of the video cassette recorder did not see the end of cinema. Convergence, predicted by Henry Jenkins, mediamorphosis, predicted by Roger Fidler, and hybridization are the more likely scenario.

However, several speakers at the FIBEP Congress, including senior executives from Google, Microsoft, and Facebook, as well as yours truly, emphasized that social media comprise a revolution as significant as the development of television and even the printing press. Social media provide a vast new extended mediascape which requires monitoring and analysis. Rather than becoming less necessary, media monitoring and media analysis are now even more essential to track and understand millions of micromedia and their potential impact on businesses and organisations.

Like the Phoenix, out of the ashes of the GFC, collapsing newspapers, and falling TV viewership, new media opportunities rise. I quoted this definition of the Phoenix from The Feng Shui Handbook by Feng Shui Master Lam Kam Chuen:

A mythical bird that never dies, the Phoenix flies far ahead to the front, always scanning the landscape and distant space. It represents our capacity for vision, for collecting sensory information about our environment and the events unfolding within it.

As I concluded in my talk to FIBEP, I can think of no better definition for a media monitoring and analysis company of the future and for public relations which manages these processes. As developed and developing markets transition from the Information Age to the Knowledge Age, facing information and sensory overload, there is an important role for those who can provide intelligence and insights.

Note: I am using the same theme in a series of two-day workshops on measurement of PR and corporate communication that I am conducting in Singapore and Hong Kong in November. For readers of The Measurement Standard in Asia, the workshops are being held in Singapore on November 16-17, and in Hong Kong on November 23-24. Click here for information from Pacific Conferences.

Also at FIBEP, AVEs...

Walter Lindenmann, Member Emeritus of the IPR's Commission on Public Relations Evaluation and Measurement, would have shuddered if he was attending FIBEP. At the Congress, the local CEO of Ketchum, Gustavo Averbuj, made it clear that he and his firm still use Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs) and defended the metric as a research method.

Walter Lindenmann founded the Research and Measurement Department of Ketchum, served as its Senior Vice President and Director of Research for 12 years, and has written extensively about using valid and reliable research to plan and measure public relations. AVEs, as readers of The Measurement Standard and all professional researchers know, are neither valid nor reliable.

Statements such as this by a CEO of a leading international firm -- albeit its South American office -- indicate how far the public relations industry has to go to achieve reputable standards and achieve legitimacy.

AVEs received some support from the floor of the Congress, which was attended by more than 50 leading media monitoring firms, but were challenged strongly by some attendees and in a keynote address by yours truly.

It is probably an omission that the PR measurement sector, led by specialist research firms and progressive public relations professionals, has not had more contact and discussion previously with FIBEP and its members. Media monitoring firms are often the first "port of call" by client organisations tracking media, and it is often from monitoring companies that AVEs emanate.

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 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.