May 26th, 2011 / 10:50 pm
When I started my communications career in the late 1980s, public relations was perceived as being an intangible relationship artistry that was notoriously difficult to measure. Expectations of accurate measurement were therefore low, but the anticipated demand for a reliable measurement system was always assumed to be high (should one ever be developed).
During those analogue days, measurement was crude and arbitrary; most PR people felt frustrated that the enormous contribution we all believed our profession was contributing to our clients’ business success went under-reported and was therefore perennially undervalued. Many sought to be the first to find the ‘Holy Grail’ of PR that truly accurate and objective measurement tools would represent.
Now, approaching a quarter century later, the rise of digital is transforming PR into a measurable science of persuasion. Social networks have opened up a whole new world of measurement possibilities. After all, digital is by very definition about data. We suddenly have access to a wealth of information – page views, ‘likes’, click-throughs, comments, re-tweets, downloads and a myriad other ways of tracking how consumers of content interact with and respond to our communications.
But while much has changed during my PR life in the sophistication of tools available to measure results, the underlying imperative has remained basically the same. It is still essential to define real, tangible outcomes from the outset before deciding what your communications activities will look like and how they will be measured.
Experienced PR professionals will always work to build communications programs backward, ‘reverse engineered’ from a clear understanding of the business objectives they are seeking to achieve – typically a measurable change in the attitudes or behavior of a specific target community to a product or an organization.
Return on investment in digital communication is measured in the same way as in every other discipline – it is simply the ratio between the tangible results obtained and the expense of securing those results.
Having a massive online presence is not, in itself, a PR result. Online visibility is important, but only insofar as it drives intended behaviours. The challenge for PR pros is to use that presence to facilitate dialogue-driven relationships with targeted groups of stakeholders and track their response to your communications.
That means incorporating clear calls to action in PR – “Download this coupon,” “Sign up for this newsletter,” “Support this proposal” – targeting communications effectively with the audiences most likely to respond to that call, and tracking the way in which they do, in fact, respond.
In this new modern era of “easy metrics,” the imperative is to identify only what is meaningful and measure that. We need to consider not only the volume of information we disseminate, but also the ways in which that information inspires measurable stakeholder activity in favour of a clearly defined business result.
This is the world that PR professionals have always wanted to live in. To take advantage of it, we need to use today’s new measurement instruments to demonstrate why and how our discipline adds real business value. Unlike when I started my career, today’s newcomers to the profession have the digital tools that allow them to build PR’s compelling ‘evidence-based’ case for the marketing budgets our work has always merited.
Thanks to Steve Bowen for his contribution to this post.
April 24th, 2010 / 3:08 am
On April 23rd, I gave a speech to the 5th Annual Opinion Mining Workshop in Seoul. Attended by 150 academics, marketers, and social media thought leaders, the event was hosted by Daumsoft, a very exciting Korean company that among other things provides ultra-advanced business intelligence-gathering and media monitoring systems using their text mining technology. Here’s a copy of the presentation that I delivered:
Related blog post: The art of mapping the science of PR
December 7th, 2009 / 4:00 pm
Around the world of public relations, I keep hearing that PR is becoming more a science than an art, thanks to the advent of new online tools that allow us to see how many eyeballs are looking at the content we’ve put into the public domain. As a lifelong maps enthusiast who collects antique world globes, I am particularly mesmerized by the plotting of online visitor data onto measurement maps, such as YouTube’s insight (screen shot from my channel follows):
PR professionals have historically specialized in sharing information with others, so that people will do or think what we’re hoping they will do or think. Typically we’ve relied upon the editorial media as the conveyor of content to target audiences. That took a lot of hard work to ‘earn’ coverage, pitching stories to serious journalists, making a case with compelling arguments and ‘proof points,’ thinking in advance about helping the reporter sell a story to an exacting editor (ever worried about producing news product that the marketing department could use to extract larger sums from advertisers interested in persuading the biggest possible audience).
Today with the shrinking of the news media ‘storyselling zone,’ PR people have new opportunities to communicate corporate narratives via social media directly with constituencies of all kinds. “Every company can be a media company,” Richard Edelman has repeatedly stated in many speeches lately (recently putting a finer point on his views in this post). You could also say that “every PR pro can now be a media producer,” because we are all so intimately and directly involved with the creation, programming and sharing of content. Because this ‘PR 2.0′ takes place online, we can measure what people click, where they are located, how long they spend somewhere, what they share with others, etc. This technology is not so new, but the widespread integration of such intelligence gathering into PR campaigns is coming on strong. Clients are also more impatient than ever, and they love the instant feedback from real-time sources.
During two decades in public relations, I have sat in a lot of long meetings across from many skeptical executives — especially those with financial and scientific backgrounds — who can’t appreciate the value PR adds absent the tangibility of numbers on a chart. So, the idea that we can visibly capture the contribution of PR and try to quantify it using richer tools is immensely attractive.
For years, we could count piles of press clippings, look for a client name in the headlines, classify articles as ‘positive,’ ‘negative’ or ‘neutral,’ comb paragraphs looking for key messages, and even try to calculate ‘equivalent advertising value.’ When it came time for the new business pitch or client performance review, we would wheel out these crude measures and package them as convincingly as possible. For my money, while such techniques did offer a useful gauge of how things were going, it was a highly inexact business at best and clients often didn’t feel they could trust what often came across as self-serving numbers.
Thus for time immemorial there has been this quest for the ‘Holy Grail’ of PR measurement, which is now gathering momentum because software platforms developed to monitor social media can now, I am told by experts like Alan Chumley, also be applied to measuring conventional media coverage. Plus we can use tools like word clouds to simplify and vivify what has been a complex and rather boring area.
Going back to 1995-96, when I helped develop the original version of this site in Canada as one of the first PR agency home pages on the Internet (and then this site in Korea and this one in Japan), I’ve been fascinated by visitor stats — using Web Trends, Webalizer, etc. — but clients didn’t share my passion because the numbers didn’t compute commercially. Now, fortunately, owing to the social media explosion and existence of powerful and free measurement systems such as Google Analytics, the Internet metrics seem to mean more to the bottom-line and now PR people can walk into client meetings where budget decisions are made in a more confident way armed with data that is seen as objective and compelling. Can we now attach a specific number to a PR campaign’s exact cash register contribution? Maybe not yet, but we are getting closer, and in the meantime, I’ll have fun playing with the map dashboards:
[When my good friend Hoh Kim in Seoul posted a link to my blog recently, I was curious to see how many Koreans would visit my site].
Since then — and this is a subsequently edited entry — I was interested to note the 100+ source cities of visitors to this new site within its first 10 days:
Recently I have been checking out some of the new Twitter apps that map followers, such as Ad.ly Analytics:
- Visualizing the rise and fall of marketing monikers
- The climate change PR disaster
- Humanitarianism in the network age
- The marketing might of modern public relations
- Guest lecture at SMU on Asia social media
- An end to ‘time zone chauvinism’
- climate change
- crisis communications
- guest post
- media relations
- national brand
- PR industry
- social media
- speaking platforms
- Russia's U.S. PR firm distances itself from Ukraine dispute: http://t.co/L2ImPMmBDG
- When to use “I” and “We” in public communication: http://t.co/svHilJjUYv | The former for resolve and the latter for accomplishments
- The psychology and philosophy of branding, marketing, needs, & actions: http://t.co/qsfOxiTNBc
- @InaBansal Well I would consider that a compliment - and a tribute to your networking skill!
- This LinkedIn Maps network visualization tool is cool: http://t.co/7PGKRiCxy5
- More and more news releases are raining down on fewer journalists: http://t.co/SFzlANFGGD | via @LouHoffman
- Russia Today TV anchor @lizwahl quits, says she can't be part of a network 'that whitewashes’ Russia’s actions: http://t.co/WdlqL9cWTo
- .@butlersam Well that is a key question (& major concern); media are increasingly migrating to PR to tell corporate stories - is that ideal?
- RT @communicateasia: Dissatisfied journalists are flocking to brands looking for quality 'brand journalism:' http://t.co/6QF4QoeUCG