 |
 |
 |
 |
| Vol.
8, No. 4, June 2009 |
To The Editor
| Subscribe | Back
Issues |
KDPaine.com | Masthead |
KDPaine's Blog | Reprint
Information | Search |
|||
Measuring Public Relations Measurement Benchpoint Survey
Says by Katie Delahaye Paine Five years ago, at the first ever Measurement Summit, Don Wright of the Institute for Public Relations and Richard Gaunt of Benchpoint teamed up to assess the state of public relations measurement around the globe. The survey results were not entirely surprising: Many people thought PR measurement was a good idea but not very many people were doing it in any substantive way. So time passes, new metrics get invented, new methodologies get tried out. And we're all feeling pretty good about the progress of measurement. Until the results of this year's Benchpoint survey, (sponsored by the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) and the Institute for Public Relations) the first since the one five years ago, were revealed. My initial response was summed up in my blog post: I'm amazed how many people think clips and AVEs are real measurement. But I have a lot more to say about the results and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. Read the authors' interim report here (it's a 1.5 MB pdf file). They are still working on a final report (due at the end of July 2009), so don't be shy about telling them what you think. You can view the charts and read what the authors have to say in the report. There is a lot of hard work in it, and I'm glad they did it. The authors and I interpret the data in much the same way, but my view is somewhat more acidic than theirs... First
the good news: The survey's biggest finding was that 8% more people say they are measuring in 2009 than said so in 2004. Also, the survey asked some general attitude questions about measurement, and found that respondents believe, unanimously and strongly that:
Now
the bad news: As we will see below, people are counting more and measuring less. And worse, they don't seem to know the difference. Consider the following results: 1. Criteria of Effectiveness are mostly just outputs The responses to the following question are quite revealing: What criteria do you actually use to evaluate your external communications effectiveness?
According to the survey authors: "This is a multi choice question which attracted nearly 1600 responses. So respondents clearly use more than one criterion. We are a long way from a universally accepted methodology." My interpretation: Most measurement experts, including myself, would not consider "Hit target media" and "On time, on budget" as doing real measurement. Probably not "Measures of message output," either. So what this question is telling us is that over half of the people who think they are measuring are actually only confirming that they got coverage. 2. Tools Used: Clips rule, AVEs increase in popularity Notice the chart under "Tools Used for Evaluating External Communications Effectiveness":
My interpretation: What these results reveal is that, while more people believe they are measuring, what they are actually doing is counting more and measuring less. Don't they know any better? 3. Apparently they don't know any better, because only the measurement pros have a clue When all communicators are compared to just those closely involved in measurement, we see that measurement tool approval ratings are lower for clippings and AVEs. In other words, the people most knowledgeable about measurement do realize the limitations of these two "tools." What we can conclude here is that the rest of the people -- who think they are measuring but are using outmoded or discredited tools -- are simply not knowledgeable enough about measurement to understand what they are doing. 4. Lack of knowledge is also why people just don't measure in the first place A substantial number of respondents to the survey said they do not measure their pubic relations programs. Their stated reasons for not measuring and the relative rank of those reasons has not changed since the last survey. In rank order the excuses given for not measuring are:
My interpretation: In many cases, although people cited "Cost" and "Lack of time," the underlying reason may just as well be lack of knowledge. This is because, in a great many cases, affordable and less time intensive options are available. People just don't know about them. This is borne out in respondents' comments (my comments in italics):
5. People say they like ROI, but they don't use the measurement tools that provide it? Why? Fear of ROI. The survey found strong agreement that:
The survey authors conclude that there is great opportunity for a PR ROI tool: "the hunger for a workable ROI methodology is even greater than it was before... An opportunity if ever there was one." My interpretation: I come to a different conclusion. If everyone is so darn hot on ROI, why aren't they measuring it? I say the reason is, again, lack of knowledge about measurement and measurement tools. Because, there are measurement tools out there that will provide ROI (albeit, not simple or easy to use). So if they really, truly wanted ROI, then they would use measurement techniques that would allow them to calculate it. But instead, they focus on exposure-based methods like clippings and AVEs, because they are afraid of actually learning what the ROI of their programs is. They might find that their programs yielded considerably less R than the I that was put into them. The
survey was conducted by Benchpoint, an online survey company specializing
in employee, customer and membership surveys for large
and small organizations.
It uses a unique proprietary system to provide real-time, fully
analyzed results. Clients include international companies, NGOs,
professional
associations and the UK Government. Download
the survey report here. For more information contact Richard Gaunt at: gaunt@benchpoint.com |
 |
Recent new articles:
Here is the book that gets people hired!
|
|
|
177 Main Street, Berlin, NH 03570 |
|||
