Public relations measurement can now -- hey! -- measure relationships.

Relationship Measurement Case Study

Relationships Audit Reveals Precise Public Relations Weaknesses
"The client even applauded at the end of our presentation!"

by Forrest W. Anderson

(Editor's Note: After reading this article, you can learn more about measuring relationships in Katie Delahaye Paine's new almost-hot-off-the-press book "Measuring Public Relationships" here.)

Until I tried it, I dismissed the idea of measuring relationships. However, I've changed my thinking since using these measures in a communications audit led by Paul Raab at Denver-based Linhart Public Relations. The relationship measures gave us unexpected insights that led to solid business and communications recommendations. The client, the National Governing Board (NGB) for a U.S. Olympic sport, even applauded at the end of our presentation! They tell us they refer to it and use it every day -- the COO actually cuts and pastes our recommendations when assigning communications tasks to staff!

Relationship measurement is a fairly recent development. As you may know, in 1999 Jim Grunig and Linda Childers Hon published a paper on how to evaluate relationships. One of their premises is that the real business of public relations is managing relationships. Using professional and academic information, they derived six factors that collectively measure the strength of a relationship from the stakeholder's point of view:

1. Mutual Control
2. Trust
3. Satisfaction
4. Commitment
5. Exchange
6. Community

Grunig and Hon also developed specific questions to measure these factors. For our NGB audit, we used these questions to survey current and potential team athletes, their parents and coaches, donors and trustees. The data showed relationships were strong across all but two of the six relationship factors: Exchange and Mutual Control.

We disallowed the Exchange factor results, which showed that stakeholders did not believe the organization did anything without expecting something in return. Considering the particular situation, this seemed appropriate.

However, the Mutual Control issue was different. Our client wants commitment from athletes and coaches to training and integrity, and to their organization. And it needs money from donors. The athletes and coaches want financial and logistic support from the organization. Donors want to see performance, integrity and support for the organization from the athletes who reach the podium. The survey results, however, showed that most stakeholder groups believed the client didn't listen or respond to their wants and needs. The data enabled us to demonstrate to the client that to achieve its goals, it needed to listen better and actually respond to stakeholder concerns, rather than ignore them.

I was surprised by how sensitive this technique is. Not only did it tell me the relationship was weak, but it told me how. As a communications professional, the recommendations for addressing that kind of issue were second nature.

Until now, I had not given the approach much attention, mostly because it doesn't get at sales or share price, the issues I've always believed CEOs really care about. Now I think evaluating the strength of relationships would be useful for any organization. It obviously makes sense for public and community affairs. Other applications could include assessing relationships with customers, employees, shareholders, financial analysts, technical analysts and so on. It also offers a benchmark against which to evaluate the success of communications programs.

Forrest W. Anderson is an insight consultant helping organizations communicate better through better understanding their target audiences. He is a founding member of the IPR Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.

Paul Raab, APR, is senior vice president and partner at Linhart Public Relations.