Change in measuring PR - MMHK August PR Viewpoint

Far too much of the public relations profession is willing to have the success of content and events to be measured based on AVE alone. It's an age-old quantitative formula - media coverage generated is measured piece by piece and the equivalent advertising value calculated.

That's a crude calculation which fails to take into account many factors including qualitative elements of the coverage (ie positive, neutral or negative; messages conveyed) and assumes advertising is the same as editorial in the eyes of the audience. Try telling that to readers who skip over the newspaper advertisements when reading at breakfast or leave the room when watching TV. It just doesn't make sense when considering the credibility conferred upon a company, brand or institution by independent journalists who weigh myriad facts as well as viewpoints (often from critical or neutral third parties) in crafting their pieces.

Companies work hard and do the right thing mostly - and the best, most authentic media coverage is usually driven by a corporation embracing innovative practices at the core of its business rather than putting on a show for good PR. That cutting-edge work is often complex, nuanced and brings a broad range of benefits for the business - such as better sales, improved financial performance, heightened employee morale, deeper engagement with the community, environmentally-friendly practices and so on - which would never be measured in terms of success merely as the advertising value of the PR coverage.

Similarly, communications programs today should be linked somehow to the core of the business - selling products or services in the case of marketing communications; enhancing or defending corporate reputation to provide a license to operate, contribute to shareholder value and attract the best talent; and engaging with stakeholders to develop an optimal external operating environment or address threats to the business. AVE along measures only the tip, and often does so in an inaccurate manner.

It's too easy to moan "but the C-suite/my client" only understands and cares about AVE when measuring return-on-investment. PR practitioners need to be proactive when engaging with management or clients and begin an open discussion about best practice in measurement. The over-reliance on AVEs often occurs because in-house executives or consultants are not taking a strategic role as trusted advisers to management or their clients where they should be advising on the role of communications and PR on the business and its operating environment.

The most robust and compelling key performance indicators for any communications program comprise a combination of (i) quantitative and qualitative media analysis, (ii) data tracking reputation or brand, and (iii) impact on business.

Public relations professional bodies in Canada and Australia have taken a dim view of AVEs, urging members not to employ them and instead offering different approaches. These alternatives include tools such as the Media Relations Rating Points System in Canada which is being used by a number of multinationals. In Asia, the use of AVEs has become so widespread and entrenched it'd be difficult for any in-house executive or consultant to refuse when requested to employ this approach. However, a shift in mindset can begin by introducing other indicators such as prominence, share of voice, tone (positive, neutral or negative), reach (or opportunities to see) and pickup of key messages. Other factors to consider include whether the company was mentioned, a call to action was included, another spokesperson from a credible organisation was also quoted, as well as the status of media (tier one or two).

In a region where PR budgets are often not as significant as North America or Europe, corporations can be reluctant to undertake ongoing measurement of brand or reputation for PR purposes alone. But companies with extensive advertising campaigns often conduct regular customer and stakeholder surveys, so it's worth including techniques which can separate the effect of PR from advertising. Too often improvements in customer or stakeholder sentiment can be attributed to PR but are overlooked.

The most powerful and persuasive measurement of PR arises from business impacts. These are the tangible results of PR campaigns - increase in sales, introduction of new customers, identification and resolving of internal or external issues constraining the entire business, defusing a threatening crisis, a lobbying efforts to defeat legislation which might have hampered the company, or creation of favorable regulatory conditions. Measurement is not an end in itself, it provides a number of tools and approaches for assessing success, adjusting programs and deciding the best way forward. AVEs, if required, should form just one part of the equation and dialogue.

Glenn Schloss

Regional director for corporate communications, Asia Pacific

Hill & Knowlton.