The success of public relations has always been amorphous, challenged by a lack of tangible parameters of measurement. In fact, measurement, has often been considered the Holy Grail of public relations - as everyone knows about it, but is unable to find it.

There is a famous saying that “What cannot be measured, cannot be managed”

By definition, measurement is the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity of something. Therefore, the measurement of a public relations programme would logically mean the act of ascertaining the extent, dimensions or quantity of its achievements – the magical something.

I believe that public relations if often seen merely as the act of gaining favourable press coverage and hence the measurement of its impact is limited to the extent of the favourable press coverage it was able to garner. In fact, this is just the beginning of the long journey of measuring public relations.

While targeting favourable press coverage, the measure of the success of a public relations programme predominantly becomes “Advertising Value Equivalent” or AVE, which translates into the advertising value of the editorial exposure received by a company. Many continue to use this benchmark to measure the success of their publicity programme, but under the garb of a public relations campaign.

The first cousin of AVE is often “Number of Press Impressions”. Referring to the number of people who might have had the opportunity to be exposed to a story that has appeared in the media, it usually refers to the total audited circulation of a publication or the audience reach of a broadcast vehicle. I call it the ‘thud factor’ - the success of the programme being measured by whose ‘coverage dossier’ was heavier! Though, at the point of extinction, some still continue to use this archaic methodology to benchmark their public relations programmes!

Basically, time/space measures or variations of it will continue to be the predominant way to measure the impact of public relations programme as long as public relations is narrowly used for mere press relations.

So is there more to it than press relations? Yes, of course! Let me first focus on establishing a common understanding of public relations to help us understand the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of measuring its impact.

Public relations in the essence remains “the act of generating goodwill or mutual understanding between a company and its various publics/stakeholders”.

Robert L. Heath describes public relations in the Encyclopedia of Public Relations as a “set of management, supervisory, and technical functions that foster an organization’s ability to strategically listen to, appreciate, and respond to those persons whose mutually beneficial relationships with the organization are necessary if it is to achieve its missions and values.”

In the early 1900s Edward Louis Bernays, considered the founding father of modern public relations along with Ivy Lee, defined public relations as “a management function which tabulates public attitudes, defines the policies, procedures and interest of an organization followed by executing a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance”

Therefore, as we see, it is essentially a management function that focuses on two-way communication and fostering of mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics. According to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), the functions of Public Relations include research, planning, communications dialogue and evaluation

It would seem that public relations is about changing attitudes to gain public’s understanding and acceptance. Publics meaning stakeholders whose understanding and acceptance is material to the success of the company. This achieved through a two-way communication.

I had earlier described measurement as the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity of something. So, if we were to put together Bernays, Lee and Heath’s definition with that of measurement, what can we conclude about measuring the impact of public relations?

As I see it, the effectiveness of the public relations programme should be measured in terms of change in attitude, understanding gained and acceptance received from the stakeholders of a company whilst the efficiency of the communication process should be measured in terms of the relevance of the medium and the message used between the sender and the recipient.

This brings us to the next big question: Shouldn’t we use our knowledge of the true value of public relations to measure both effectiveness and efficiency of the communication process or continue to follow the age-old practice of time and share in the press alone?

The answer is strikingly clear. It is high time we learn from the journey of public relations in the West and make a leap that brings the role and impact of public relations into the C Suite.

As Bernays and Lee explain in their definition it is “a management function that tabulates public attitude…”. Therefore, effectiveness of public relations has to be about identifying the public, mapping and tabulating their ‘current attitude’ to seek insights into their current beliefs and sources of information that eventually drive their understanding and acceptance of the company.

Thereafter, to define the policies, procedures and interest of an organization followed by executing a program of action - and finally closing the loop by measuring the changes in the beliefs, attitudes, understanding and acceptance that the programme has been able to generate. This is the continuous process of gaining trust of the stakeholders.

Interestingly, our market research colleagues have made a whole industry out of it and there are several well established methodologies available for use. Public relations professionals need to embrace this practice and acquire knowledge, skills and attitude to read, understand and influence the human mind in a positive way!

But do not mistake me for underestimating or eliminating the role of third party endorsement generated through the several mediums including the press. I am not. I am merely suggesting that we have the opportunity to do things differently in making a difference to the business of our clients.

However, if the focus of your measurement is to measure the ‘efficiency’ of the communication process or the media effort, we can employ ‘content analysis’ across a range of parameters including share of voice, prominence, tone and focus of message within the backdrop of the most relevant medium for a set of stakeholders. There are several ‘content analysis’ service providers today. We, at Genesis Burson-Marsteller work with Impact Research and Measurement to help us make sense of news and views being expressed in the press and establish our ‘output objectives’.

This measure is like a milestone on the road, a barometer of the progress we are making in our journey. If undertaken strategically and not merely with AVE or share of ink, it can help interpret the expected impact of the communication process. With the internet playing a larger role in the lives of people day by day, content analysis can help not only deal with the information overload but make sense of it. Overall, this helps direct the resources of an organization into the right mediums and message, thereby making the conversations more engaging.

Whatever your measure, public relations needs to focus on what to measure and the answer to the how will emerge. In the world that demands RoI on everything we can no longer afford to question whether to measure or not.

Measurement in public relations does not need to be our Holy Grail and we do not need to solve the Da Vinci code to find it! The solution is right here and all we need to do is to have the courage to embrace it.

Share/Save as a bookmark

Tags: measuring public relations, press relations, public relations campaign, public relations measurement, public relations program