 |
|||||
 |
|||||
| August 28, 2002
The Paine of Measurement Thou Shalt Not Refrain from Measurement
The adages “You can’t measure PR” and “What we do is too intangible to measure” haven’t held water since the early 1990s, when computers brought new and sophisticated tools into the hands of corporate communicators. With widespread use of the Internet, as well as the existence of far more integrated data sharing systems within organizations, almost anyone can at least get a pulse check of what their audiences are saying or doing. No, the real reason that a large percentage of communicators are still not accurately measuring their results is fear. Fear that management will realize that for years they’ve been measuring activity, not results. Fear that measurement will show that their program isn’t working (but without measurement they also won’t know if it is working), fear that if the results are poor they’ll be punished or fired (see the article about Donna Colletti elsewhere in this issue), or fear that they’ll not be able to adequately explain the results. The last fear is perhaps the most insidious, because it seems to lead inevitably to people adopting silly numbers like Ad Value Equivalency measures which are not only wrong, but inaccurate. For the vast majority of quick fixes, there is no proof of the underlying methodology. No one has ever shown that in all cases a 10-column inch ad is the equivalent of a 10-column inch story. Nor is there any proof that the story is 3 or 5 or 10 times more credible than an ad. That’s just wishful thinking or underhanded misrepresentation. Which brings us back to corporate accountability. More than “the number,” more than “a universal standard for PR measurement,” what this industry needs is more accountable communicators. More PR Managers, Public Information Officers, Vice Presidents of Corporate Communications, and Directors of Public Affairs who are willing to reject simplistic answers like AVEs and clip counts, and to focus today’s most sophisticated measurement tools on their own programs. PR needs its own Sherron Watkins (the Enron whistle-blower) to turn the microscopes on ourselves and risk finding out that our pet projects—or worse still our CEO’s pet projects—don’t work. Yes, yes, I can hear some of your objections already. There is a big difference between the various criminal Enronian felonies and just being too ignorant, scared or lazy to evaluate one’s PR. Failure to measure may be many reprehensible things, but it is not against the law. It is not even, I’ll grant you, immoral. (Although, now that I think of it, “Thou shalt not refrain from measurement!” has a nice ring to it.) But there is a very good case for failure to measure being professionally unethical. Until a majority of professional communicators are evaluating their results—in terms of outcomes, not just outputs—we do not deserve that seat at the table we so crave. And, at least in the cluelessness of our uninformed decision-making, we are fundamentally as unethical as the current crop of indicted CEOs. Measure on…
133 Islington Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801 Subscribe now to The Measurement Standard. |
||||
Three Reasons Why You Should Subscribe to The Measurement Standard:
Click here to subscribe now!. (It’s 100% money-back guaranteed!) |
||||
With public confidence in free-fall, it’s time for corporate communicators to shoulder their share of responsibility. Elsewhere in this issue you’ll read Jim Macnamara’s excellent piece on the questionable ethics of corporate communicators who spend millions of dollars without adequate accountability. I’d go one step further and say that any CEO or board that isn’t demanding accurate and demonstrable measures of corporate communications success should be replaced. And any head of corporate communications who doesn’t have an accurate and consistent measurement system in place should be shown the door as well. With the wide range of affordable tools now available to measure reputation, image and overall communications results, there is no excuse other than fear or laziness for a professional communicator not to be accountable for his/her performance and budget.
