Measurement is an integral part of PR – global survey

As mentioned on K.D Paine’s blog and the Institute for Public Relations website, a new international survey of PR professionals has found that more practitioners than ever are measuring the effectiveness of their communications programmes.

The survey carried out by Benchpoint for AMEC, the international Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication and the Institute for Public Relations, was presented at the 1st European Summit on Measurement in Berlin held from June 10-12 and attended by nearly 200 delegates from 28 countries.

The survey was carried out amongst a sample of 520 PR professionals internationally.

Key findings were:

• The overwhelming majority of PR professionals, 88%, believe measurement is an integral part of the PR process (70% believe this strongly).
• While 77% of respondents claimed to measure their work compared with 69% in a similar survey five years ago, the survey results show that the PR profession are still not agreed on the best tools and methodologies.
• Measuring ROI (return on investment) on communications is viewed as an achievable goal by the overwhelming majority of professional communicators taking part in the survey. There is, however, very strong agreement that it is possible to calculate ROI on communications, and that demonstrable ROI would enhance the budgets (and status) of PR practitioners.
• PR Professionals still tend to judge their success criteria more by their ability to place material in the media rather than on the impact such coverage might have on shifting opinion, awareness, or moving markets, although there is evidence that this is changing.
• The survey found that the tools used by PR professionals includes press clippings – still the favourite – closely followed by AVEs (Advertising value equivalent) and more rigorous tools including Internal Reviews, Benchmarking, and the use of specialist media evaluation tools. Various forms of opinion polling and focus groups also remain as popular tools.

 Read more findings from the study>>

Glenn

Mor-on Twittering

Following from my post about AVE’s and twittering in conference sessions earlier this week, it seems that some of the twitterers were not just against AVEs, but also against anyone defending them.

My point is  how can you hear  the argument if you are up to you neck in  negative twitters – not just with other people in the room, but the rest of the world too? Also, be careful.  Libel lawyers also subscribe to Twitter.

Basically, the presentation was:

a) Asked how many people in the room us AVE’s — almost everyone raised their hands

b) Given that it is a wide-spread practice, here are some ideas about how to use and not use them:

- no multipliers unless verified
- adjust for quality of placement
- possible use as a predictor of sales based on some recent experimental modeling work
- don’t call it the value of PR, call it what it is — comparable cost of buying the space as advertising, a cost that may be the perceived minimum value to the advertiser as a contribution to their business. This assumes the market for advertising is one that functions as an effective market with complete information (ie negotiated rates, not ratecard).

The presentation neither endorsed nor deplored the use of AVE’s, but instead recognized that its use is widespread. There may be reasons to use that approach, and if one does use it here are some do’s and don’ts…. (get the presentation by emailing David.Rockland@ketchum.com)

Richard

Thoughts from the Berlin Measurement Summit

The 1st European Measurement Summit was a great success.  Delegates are busy doing a survey (organised by Benchpoint), and the feedback is looking very positive.
My Highlights:
Neil Martinson, head of press and PR in the UK Government’s Central Office of Information (COI), spends £25million (€29.3 million) on PR every year, so is fairly interested in knowing which half is wasted. He asked five  media measurement and evaluation specialists to do some test measurements on a recent campaign. The result? Five very different measurements, and no agreement on criteria or methodology.
David Rockland’s sprited defence of AVE’s (Advertising Value Equivalents). Actually, it’s quite a good measure of penetration, reach and performance. The only trouble is the V word. People manipulate the figures to give the impression that editorial is worth more than advertising, which is hardly objective or honest. And no two people seem to do it the same way (see above) But there has to be a way of integrating this figure with other measures to give a true index of success. By the way David is MD of Ketchum’s global research network, and knows a thing or two. Methinks the detractors are a little over the top on this one.
Social Media. Half the conference were struggling to understand what Social Media is and how to use it, while the other half were on line to each other commenting on what each speaker was saying, without the bother of joining in the discussion with other delegates. I was chuffed when the delegate in front of me started reading this blog  during one of the presentations. Should I join Twitter? Or is it just people shouting, and no-one else listening?

I shall be returning to more serious content in future posts. But meanwhile, please comment or contribute to the ongoing debate.

Richard

Latest trends in communications evaluation

At the AMEC Measurement Summit in Berlin, Richard Gaunt, co-author of this blog (pictured next to Glenn O’Neil, co-author at the Summit),  presented some key findings of a survey on evaluation practices amongst communication professionals worldwide (0ver 500 respondents). Some of the key findings were:

• 77% of communication professionals are doing some type of evaluation
• Most communication professionals are measuring “outputs”, using media clipping services to monitor visibility
• Two clear groups emerge amongst communication professionals, those who are interested in measuring “outputs” (distribution, number of media mentions) and those who are interested in measuring “outcomes” (changes to knowledge, attitudes and behaviour).

We will be posting more results in the coming days…

Photo – blog authors Glenn and Richard at the AMEC Measurement Summit – photo by K D Paine, see more photos from the Summit >>

Communication evaluation – recession proof?

In a new report released by the International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication, one of the findings is that a large majority of clients are demanding greater proof of programme effectiveness, with 77% of AMEC members identifying this trend. At the same time, clients are becoming more price sensitive:

Key results of the study include:

• Increasing client interest in measuring social media reported by 92% of AMEC members;
• Clients becoming more price sensitive (92%);
• 69% of members taking part in the study also report that procurement specialists are becoming more involved in the purchase of measurement and evaluation services.

Further information>>

Presenting campaign evaluation at Berlin Summit

I’m happy to announce that I will be speaking at the forthcoming  European Summit on Measurement, June 10-12 in Berlin, Germany. My presentation will be on an evaluation I have been doing on the global communications campaign on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (that’s the campaign logo on this post).  I present jointly with Victor Fernandez of UN Human Rights.

Also presenting at the Berlin Summit, will be my follow blog author, Richard Gaunt. The Summit has launched a survey on the state of communications and PR measurement – which Richard will be presenting at the Summit.  If you are a communications professional, please complete the survey here>>

Looking forward to seeing some fellow evaluators in Berlin!

Glenn