PR Evaluation Survey 2 - 45% say there's a "lack of information"

This is the second of two posts on small-scale research into current PR measurement and evaluation practices. See # below for the methodology.

The first posting identified that while 80% claimed to formally or informally evaluate PR activity, 43% continued to use AVE as a prominent measurement metric.

This post reports on who is doing evaluation, the percentage of PR activity evaluated, some attitudes, knowledge of the Barcelona Principles and students’ views on the whether evaluation was being undertaken ethically.

Who did the evaluation of PR activities?

Account team/PR staff – 45.6%

In-house research and outside media analysis company – 26.5%

In-house research section – 16.3%

·         It looks as if self-certification of PR activity is common

What percentage of PR activity was evaluated?

100% - 35.7%

90% - 19.0%

80% - 11.9%

·         Good news – Two-thirds of the 80% who evaluate their PR coverage (53.3%) measure and monitor 80% to 100% of their PR activity

Questions about attitudes to PR measurement and evaluation

1)    PR budget is difficult to obtain: 37.7% agree or strongly agree; 28.2% disagree or strong disagree

2)    There is a lack of information on PR evaluation: 45.3% agree or strongly agree; 34.0% disagree or strong disagree

3)    There is a lack of time for PR measurement: 55.6% agree or strong agree; 24.1% disagree or strongly disagree

4)    PR is difficult to measure: 35.8% agree or strongly agree; 35.8% disagree or strongly disagree

5)    Practitioners fear evaluation: 25.0% agree or strongly agree; 42.3% disagree or strongly disagree

6)    Without measurement, PR’s future is threatened: 64.1% agree or strong agree; 20.8% disagree or strongly disagree

·         Mixed messages – 7% more say budget is difficult to obtain; there is a gap of 11% between those who agree that there is a lack of information on PR measurement (a large 45.3%) and those who don’t; a clear majority don’t have time to evaluate ('too busy doing PR'); there is a balance between those who find PR activity difficult to measure and those who don’t, which is an improvement; Many disagree that practitioners fear evaluation, but nearly-two thirds (64.1%) agree that PR’s future is threatened without the consistent use of measurement and evaluation.

·         The most concerning attitudinal outcome is that 45.3% of organisations say there is a lack of information on PR measurement and evaluation methods. This is a negative comment on the professionalism of many practitioners who can’t be bothered to look at abundant resources in terms of online materials (often free), books and training courses. Measurement and evaluation has been a major education and training topic since the mid-1990s and appears to have been ignored by them.

Students were asked about the percentage of PR budgets that were applied to PR measurement and evaluation. Most, not surprisingly because of their junior positions, ‘Didn’t know’ (53.8%) but the next largest valid percentage was for 1-3% of total budget (17.3%), which aligns with other research in the UK and Australia.

Barcelona Principles

Students were questioned whether the Barcelona Declaration of Measurement Principles (AMEC 2010) was referred to or mentioned at their main placement. Their answers were wholly negative with 55/55 ticking “NO”. Bearing in mind the support that AMEC, CIPR, PRCA, PRSA, IPR, Global Alliance, etc have given to the Barcelona Principles in the past three years, this is a very disappointing result but is similar to US research (Ragan and others) that found low awareness.

Was PR evaluation undertaken ethically

YES – 74.0%; NO – 26.0%

No comment!

# Methodology: PR students at Bournemouth University were surveyed recently about their experiences of evaluation practices during their 2012/13 sandwich year placement. 55 students (85%) took part, voluntarily, in the self-completion survey. As all but one (98.2%) had been on placement for nine months or more in a single organisation, they can be considered valid observers of practices taking place around them or in which they participated. The data were analysed using SPSS which provided descriptive statistics, mainly frequencies. The data used in these posts is based on ‘Valid Percent’ which omits missing answers unless they are a large part of the sample.

PR Evaluation Survey 1 – 80% do measurement; 43% use AVE

PR students at Bournemouth University were surveyed recently about their experiences of evaluation practices during their 2012/13 sandwich year placement. 55 students (85%) took part in the self-completion survey. As all but one of them (98.2%) had been on placement for nine months or more in a single organisation, they can be considered valid observers of practices taking place around them or in which they participated.

Headline news, using valid percentages, was that they reported

• 80% of placement organisations undertook formal or information evaluation of PR activity
• 79.2% of activity was measured in those organisations that undertook evaluation
• The main measurement was of media coverage, by 10 times (at least) ahead of measurement of KPIs, social media or organisational objectives (in that ranking)
• AVE was used in 43.2% of placement organisations; On the other hand, it was not used in 56.8% of placement organisations

Calculation of AVE

Students who reported that AVE was used were asked “How was AVE calculated at your main placement organisation?”

Their verbatim replies indicate that (1) AVE continues to be widely used and (2) some AMEC members are actively offering products and services to calculate the metric.

Got it from Precise; PR Value = AVE x 3 divided by 100

Based on rates from Gorkana

By media evaluation agency as percentage of editorial value

[Media coverage multiplied) X 3

Via Metrica and Cision's algorithms

We rang companies for the figures or used Precise or Gorkana

We used Mymarket Monitor to indicate AVE which they used page space to decide value

A piece of coverage that took up 1/4 of the page, for example, was divided by 4 and x (multiplied) by 3 or 5 depending on whether it was online or print coverage.

PR value x 3

PR Value = Advertising by 3

For press coverage a value was calculated at the end of the month

Depending on the size of coverage times x 3

Through Precise Media and AVE reports for each campaign

We would send coverage to an outside agency (Kantor) they would reply with AVE

By measuring coverage, working out the costs of this space by advertising rates and times value by 3

Calculated the published article against (an) advertising rate card. Also against viewers

Not sure: PR Value x 3 (divided by) 100%. Same strategy applied for all.

From Precise media cuttings package

Despite the Barcelona Principles, which were announced with very visible support from CIPR and PRCA in 2010, AVE is as widely used as it ever was. And AMEC members, who wrote and adopted the Barcelona Principles which barred use of AVE, are leading the way in its continued usage.

More research outcomes follow soon in PR Evaluation Survey 2.

A Credo for PR

One of the grand old men of UK public relations, Tim Traverse-Healy, a founder of IPRA and an early member of the UK’s Institute of Public Relations (now CIPR), has prepared a Credo for Public Relations. I recommend that you read it and, hopefully, agree with the ethical and practice framework he proposes.

CREDO

Now aged 90, I commenced public relations practice in 1947 on my return from service with the Royal Marine Commandos. I am the only Founding Father of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and International Public Relations Association still alive. At the close of my 66-year-long career I wish to record my professional beliefs in the hope that, aided by academics and educators, my assumptions and assertions may be debated from time to time by younger entrants to our craft.

I do not believe that “propaganda” for causes and issues or “publicity” for products and services are per se public relations activities, although they might form part of an overall public relations programme; similarly advertising, promotion, press agentry, and communications. I believe there exist extra dimensions to the practice of professional public relations which must be present in almost equal measure before an initiative can be so termed and which grant it societal meaning and community worth. I submit that, in accord with the universally accepted principles of Freedom of Information and Expression, these ingredients are: truth, paramount concern for the public good and genuine dialogue. And real dialogue presupposes that an institution is fully prepared to change its policies and practices in the light of such activity. Information fuelled by effective two-way communications is the currency of dialogue and controversy is the price that we may have to be paid to achieve credibility.

Communication effectiveness can be evaluated and reputation measured. Audience identification and message construction come within our remit as does the maintenance and protection of reputations based upon deeds well presented. In this interdependent world one of our prime responsibilities is to forecast the likely social impact of corporate actions. Our undertaking to our employers and clients regarding confidentiality should extend to include those individuals in the public sphere whom we may consult when considering the advice we tender. In the overall scheme of things the objective of our contribution to society at large is the achievement of a balance between the intentions of the institutions we represent and the legitimate concerns of their community and constituency. The argument we are like lawyers available to either defend or prosecute is untenable.

To assist meaningful dialogue between parties involved we must understand the theories and techniques of consultation, participation, negotiation, empowerment and conflict. We must appreciate the legal and societal dictates of transparency, accountability, and governance.

Substantially, our Founding Fathers shared this vision of the fundamental philosophy governing and values underpinning our vocation. My earnest hope is that future generations of practitioners will share elements of this Credo.



Tim Traverse-Healy OBE, 1st January 2014

Responses can be sent to Tim at: Tim.traversehealy@btinternet.com

• You can also find Dr Kevin Moloney’s interview with Tim at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azTesGu3mos

Thailand's misnamed "Public Relations Department"

In Thailand, the government has a Public Relations Department in Bangkok which dates back to the mid-1930s. Notionally, it is a classic civil service information organisation but for many years has operated as an extension of political forces.

A recent Bangkok Post article quoted protesters who wanted the PR Dept to represent all views, especially people outside the main political parties. They have been protesting peacefully outside its building since Monday.

A Thai friend in Bangkok has reported how the PR Dept and free-to-air media, which are controlled by political interests aligned to the government, have distorted news about protests or ignored them. (Shades of the Istanbul protests earlier in the year):

"The PR Department and other free-to-air TV stations (which reach majority of Thai people in rural areas since they have no access to other new/alternative media) have been repeatedly sending messages that the protesters are armed, they are portrayed as dangerous, and trying to destroy democracy in Thailand.

"I have to say that it was not true at all since I was myself wondering whether it is true or not and I stopped by the (protest) site (in Democracy Square) on last Saturday's night. They have only whistles and hand clappers as their weapons.

"On Sunday, more than one million people rallied in Bangkok, but there was no news coverage on national television at all. Can you believe that? Please pray for Thailand!"

Reuters and the BBC, however, are reporting the protests: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25109420?print=true

PR and Publicity - history's feedback

In earlier blogs, I have argued that PR (in its strategic/organisational form) should be separated from publicity. It may not be a fashionable view but going back into the history of public relations, early practitioners saw a clear separation.

In 1942 (yes, 70 years ago), Herbert M. Baus wrote of public relations that “it involves all the dealings of an enterprise with the public. More limited, publicity involves placing of information before the public through established channels.”

“Public relations is becoming an established domain of business activity … as a career, public relations is one of the most reputable.”

Shortly after in 1948 Glen and Denny Griswold, who was the doyenne of US public relations, commented: “Public relations is the management function which evaluates public attitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or organization with public interest, and executes the program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance.”

So what happened to public relations’ standing as a valued management function? With the rise in consumer marketing in the mid-century, publicity was rebranded as PR.

British historian Jacquie L’Etang writing of the 1960s says: “business managers saw public relations as a cheap way of getting media coverage in comparison with advertising.”

And that’s the way PR remains for many – “a cheap way of getting media coverage”.

Baus, H. M. (1942). Publicity – How to plan, produce and place it. New York: Harper & Brothers

Griswold, G. and Griswold, D. (1948). Your public relations. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.

L’Etang, J. (2004). Public relations in Britain. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reputation and PR

I've been following the various debates on blogs (PR Moment, Wadds, etc) and in PR Week (May 17) about the reputation of public relations. 

Much of the discussion has been about the virtues of PR and how these can be expressed, rather than showing understanding of "reputation". For at least 20 years, some PR operations have portrayed themselves as "reputation managers" which has also demonstrated little understanding of reputation.

There is a lot of research and literature on this topic. Much of it is worth reading and comes from outside PR and organisational/corporate communications, as many sectors and disciplines consider that reputation relates to them or their responsibilities.

For example, a 2007 article in the Harvard Business Review specifically argued that one person in each organisation should be in charge of reputation and it should not be "people holding top 'spin' jobs such as heads of marketing and corporate communications" (Eccles, Newquist & Schatz, 2007, p.114). These authors also excluded corporate lawyers but proposed COO, CFO, heads of risk management, strategic planning and internal audit as suitable because "they have the credibility and resources necessary to do the job" (p.114). Marketers and communicators were unsuitable because they hold responsibilities which have potential conflicts of interest.

Moving on to reputation itself, US management academic Paul Argenti and Bob Druckenmiller (of Porter Novelli) defined it as: “the collective representation of multiple constituencies’ images of a company built up over time and based on a company’s identity programs, its performance and how constituencies have perceived its behaviour” (2004, p.369). 

With a bit of decoding, they are making the case that reputation is given by stakeholders ("constituencies") to an organisation, sector or profession by stakeholders because of its behaviour over time. It's not created by a promotional campaign, such as "a traditional PR campaign" or "doing better PR for PR", as proposed in the PR Week commentaries.

After reviewing all the recent comments, I'd support Lord Bell's assertion in PR Week that "the reputation of the PR industry should be based on what it does well or badly" and his focus on "the strategic importance of the business" (PR Week, May 17, p.25)

PR will build its own reputation over time through excellent strategic work undertaken by well educated, creative practitioners, operating in an ethical environment, who create value for their clients or employers. If PR continues to play in the publicity field with loose ethics, then it will get the reputation it deserves.


References
Argenti, P.A. and Druckenmiller, B., 2004. Reputation and the corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 368-374.
Eccles, R.G., Newquist, S.C. & Schatz, R. (2007). A framework for measuring reputational risk. Harvard Business Review, February 2007, 104-114.

PR associations - an uncertain future

On April 21, I posted a blog titled Are PR associations past their “sell-by” date? It was a rhetorical question and brought a lot of traffic to this blog along with some comments. It also inspired CIPR presidential candidate Jon White to start a LinkedIn discussion about the questions posed.

(BTW, I am not campaigning for either CIPR presidential candidate. I know both Jon White and Stephen Waddington and wish them well. It’s a benefit that in 2013 there is a civilised debate taking place).

Despite groans from one contributor that a “Professor of Public Relations” might actually be involved in discussion and debate, I have analysed the posts from more than 20 practitioners on this site, the LinkedIn debate and some other blogs (e.g. Stephen Waddington’s “Wadds” and Heather Yaxley’s “Green Bananas”).

These are the headlines:

1)      There’s no concept of what ‘professional PR’ or professionalism is in UK public relations practice. It’s a vague sort of aspiration that has no dimensions;

2)     About half the respondents consider CIPR should enforce a CPD policy as a requirement of continuing membership.  It should make entry more (rather than less) demanding.

3)     Some consider that CPD is too loosely applied at present; others think enforcing it would be a step too far and “would pull up the ladder” on good members who are less committed or able to spend time on training and continuing development.

4)     About half believe that there should be a PR body of some sort, preferably only one. It should be less costly, less London-centric, offer cheaper training and more benefits. It should be more engaged with stakeholders, but less with internal issues. Others were much less supportive and considered CIPR to be past its expiry date like many club-type organisations. “I think the CIPR should hear the clock ticking”, wrote one contributor.

5)     The majority consider that CIPR does not campaign for PR practitioners and their businesses. (PRCA, however, should be congratulated on its battle with NLA which has been successful in the Supreme Court).

6)     CIPR's stance on ethics is soft and relativist. Johanna Fawkes’ comment that “weak engagement with ethics undermines a lot of claims (that PR has) a social benefit, and that most Codes, including CIPR’s, are general statements of intent rather than moral guidelines” captured this.

Overall, there was an undefined feeling that a CIPR-type body should exist but there were no convincing arguments about its purpose or objectives.

Finally, a personal observation of mine on a comment that CIPR be “a provider of hard evidence of PR’s value”. Surely, that is the practitioner’s role to develop campaigns that create value that is recognised by clients and employers. Even if CIPR bestrode the whole communication landscape, it could not deliver what practitioners should be doing through application of research, planning, best practice and applied theory.

For at least two decades UK practitioners have had readily accessible information on research, planning and evaluation but have mainly chosen to ignore it for quick fixes like AVEs and other junk data.