Watson, Tom

English

Bournemouth University Research Online

PR evaluation –it’s all about relationshipsAuthor: Tom WatsonFor decades, the complaint about public relations evaluation has been that it has been more talkedabout than undertaken. Numerous studies have identified barriers such as lack of knowledge,budget and time that are blocking its extensive implementation across all areas of practice.Clients, too, have often been blamed for telling their public relations advisers to “do PR” and notwaste time and money to plan and measure it. An example from a recent study of UK CEOsshows a typical mindset, expressed by Manny Fontenla-Novoa, CEO of Thomas Cook UK Ltd:I believe enough in PR not to feel that I have to measure it, but I know I should because ifI found the right measures it would enable me to spend more on it. Unless I can prove itsworth then it will be cut in tough times along with any other discretionary spend.Which begs the question that if public relations activity is not monitored and measured, how canan accurate judgement be made on the “prove its worth” question? Within this quote, is anotherconundrum about evaluation – “if I found the right measures …” – which implies that there is alack of measurement and modelling methodology for the evaluation of public relations activity.Any scan of public relations literature, both academic and professional, will find that there isconsiderable research and advice, most recently in Evaluating Public Relations published byKogan Page earlier this year, which reviews recent research and industry trends. In common withother texts, this book puts the notion of a single method of PR evaluation to rest. This supposedHoly Grail of PR has bedevilled the promulgation of best practice in measurement and evaluationand can now be dismissed. Public relations is leaving its roots in publicity and media relationsbehind and adopting the relationship management model. Practitioners are also getting to gripswith evaluation and recent studies support this assertion.  This is not happening in isolation.  Itforms part of a broad effort to make public relations a professional and strategic discipline, onethat can demonstrate, rather than simply claim, its outcomes.Assessing relationshipsThere is a consensus emerging that the ultimate goal of public relations is to build and enhancerelationships between organisations and its key stakeholders.  American public relationspractitioner (and writer on evaluation), Walter Lindenmann linked this with the developingstandard view of public relations activities producing outputs, out-takes and outcomes (seewww.instituteforpr.com).  More recently, he has replaced ‘out-takes’ with the notion of‘measuring the success or failure of long-term relationships’.As important as it can be for an organization to measure PR outputs and outcomes, it iseven more important for an organization to measure relationships.  This is because formost organisations measuring outputs and outcomes can only give information about theeffectiveness of a particular or specific PR programme or event that has been undertaken.In order to answer the much broader question – “How can PR practitioners begin topinpoint and document for senior management the overall value of public relations to theorganization as a whole?” – different tools and techniques are required.The Institute for PR is an American research-based organisation and argues that PR contributesvalue to an organisation when its communication programmes result in quality long-termrelationships with strategic publics (stakeholders). Research it has published by Linda Hon andJames Grunig has identified two types of relationships, with four characteristics. The relationshipsare:Exchange, where one party gives benefit to the other only because the other has provided benefitsin the past or is expected to do so in the future.Communal, where parties are willing to provide benefits to the other because they are concernedfor the welfare of the other - even when they believe they might not get anything in return.Four outcomes are nominated as indicators of successful interpersonal relationships but can beapplied with equal success to relationships between organisations and their publics.Control mutuality: the degree to which the parties in a relationship are satisfied with the amountof control they have over a relationship.Trust: the level of confidence that both parties have in each other and their willingness to openthemselves to the other party. Three factors are important:- Integrity: An organization is seen as just and fair- Dependability: It will do what it says it will do- Competence: Has the ability to do what it says it will doCommitment: the extent to which both parties believe and feel the relationship is worth spendingenergy to maintain and promote.Satisfaction: the extent to which both parties feel favourably about each other because positiveexpectations about the relationship are reinforced.It is proposed that relationships are evaluated quantitatively through a questionnaire and viaqualitative methods such as focus groups and interviews. This model of measuring relationships isbeing widely tested as part of a general trend to the relationship management model of publicrelations.Developing best practiceIn the UK, there has been considerable investment by the public relations sector peak bodies toinvestigate best practice. The first of two major studies into public relations practice waspublished at the end of 2003.  Unlocking the potential of public relations was jointly funded bythe (now Chartered) Institute of Public Relations (IPR) and the Department of Trade and Industry(DTI).  The European Centre for Business Excellence was appointed to develop the projectframework (available at www.cipr.co.uk).  The issues identified by these studies demonstrate howthe problems and opportunities associated with evaluation are interwoven across public relationspractice. These included:• Public relations must increasingly be seen in the context of longer-term strategicrelationship management and engagement on emerging trends such as corporate socialresponsibility• Lack of consensus amongst in-house public relations practitioners as to the importanceand effectiveness of audience research.  Clearly more to be done to improve theapplication of research techniques to PR across the industry• Organisations now outsourcing a broad range of PR activity to consultancies.  But thecommissioning process is identified as a major problem area, with PR consultanciesbelieving the quality of the brief (objective setting) given by clients to be fairly poor• PR evaluation was seen as moderately effective across a range of indicators but bothconsultants and in-house practitioners felt their ability to benchmark performancebetween different providers of PR was relatively poorThe report argues that if public relations practitioners are to become advisors (or counsellors) atstrategic levels within their client or in-house organisations, they must be able to quantify thevalue of the advice that they offer.  Turning to the issue of standard measures to evaluate PR,there does not seem to be any consistency in views on which measures are effective in assessingthe impact of PR on the attitudes of target publics.  While there is no particular preference, therewas general approval of the measures available such as periodic surveys, individual feedback, andthe use of (or sales of) products and services.  So there seems to be a consensus that there is nomeasure that is right for all circumstances.The report implies criticism of practitioners (particularly those working in-house and in theprivate sector) for not understanding research and not taking it seriously.  It points out that there isa tendency for practitioners to place research within marketing rather than being an integral part ofthe public relations planning process.  But the report is unequivocal in stating that research isintimately linked with evaluation and requires expertise in its delivery.Moving to a broader perspective on evaluation the IPR/DTI report confirms that consultancypractitioners, at least, are looking at evaluating the client relationships their public relationscounsel is supporting, rather than simply concentrating on the process of public relations practice:“50% of respondents from PR consultancies stated they measure the quality of relationships withstakeholders/publics on behalf of their client organisations”.  This thinking is extended incomments the report makes on evaluation in general, where (among others) the strength ofrelationships over time is one of the points made, alongside stressing the need again for effectiveand well-resourced research capabilities.The DTI/IPR report study concludes that the future for PR practice, and therefore evaluation, isconcerned with facilitating, supporting and improving a complex web of stakeholderrelationships... a future where PR will be concerned with managing multi-stakeholder interactions.  PRpractitioners will be involved in interactions with many different stakeholders, whetherthey are within the organisation, customers or other immediate stakeholders, or one ofmany other publics.  Within this multi-stakeholder environment, PR practitioners will needto become expert in assessing the interactions between different publics and how theseaffect the organization.  They will need to understand what the organization and its actionsmean to each stakeholder group.Business language and evaluationThe recent debate over use of financial/management language such as Return On Investment(ROI) has been strong in the United Kingdom, with it being featured in the two reports from theIPR that had conflicting outcomes. This use of business language is reminiscent of the Holy Grailsingle evaluation method argument in that a business term is promoted for wide evaluation usage.The first report, as mentioned above, was the DTI/IPR report of 2003. Its steering grouprecommendations promoted usage of ROI:1) The Institute of Public Relations and industry bodies should collate and promoteresources on the return on investment (ROI) in public relations and identify best practiceshow boards and management teams request, receive, consider and utilise public relationsadvice and support to help their organisations better achieve their business objectives.In 2004, an alternative view came forward in another IPR report which included survey data andinterpretation from the media analysis company, Metrica Research. Entitled Best practice in themeasurement and reporting of public relations and ROI (available at www.cipr.co.uk), the reportfound that only 6% of respondents (following prompted questions) claimed to measure thecontribution of PR in ROI related terms. In discussing the survey data, the report argues against abroad use of ROI or PR ROI:The actual definition of ROI is a ratio of how much profit or cost saving is realised froman activity against its actual cost, which is often expressed as a percentage. In reality a fewPR programmes can be measured in such a way because of the problems involved inputting a realistic and credible financial value to the results achieved. As a result the termPR ROI is often used very loosely. This is not only confusing but also misleading andhelps explain why the PR industry has traditionally found it difficult to demonstratemeaningful success that links PR cause to PR effect.Having considered both cases, the report found against PR ROI and in favour of an alternative,‘evidence-based PR’, with the caveat that, “the term ‘PR ROI’ should only be used when a ratio ofhow much profit or cost saving can be directly attributed to specific PR activities”. Otherrecommendations included:• A significant change in the culture of the PR industry is required towards moresophisticated PR measurement as opposed to the ‘magic bullet’ approach that so many PRpractitioners appear to desire.• Many problems stem directly from an over-simplified view that ‘PR is basically freeadvertising’.  This leads to ‘measures’ such as AVEs (advertising equivalents), whichcontinue to be used despite being discredited.• When PR is compared with advertising, this should only be done using directlycomparable measures, such as ‘reach and frequency’, ‘cost per thousand’, or changes inawareness and attitude measured through credible market research.ConclusionPublic relations evaluation is increasingly using a wide range of measurement techniques thatbefit its emphasis on relationship management. The Holy Grail of a single industry-wide all-purpose method of measurement is fading into history and the use of ROI as one-term-fits-all foroutcomes is also being left behind. With greater confidence amongst practitioners and widereducation on research methodology, public relations practice can develop its integrated approachto planning, research and evaluation to best effect.AUTHORDr Tom Watson is Associate Professor in Communication and Head of the School ofCommunication, Charles Sturt University at Bathurst, Australia. Tom was chairman of the UK’sPublic Relations Consultants Association from 2000 to 2002. With Paul Noble, Tom Watson isthe co-author of Evaluating PR: a best practice guide to planning, researching and evaluatingpublic relations, published recently by Kogan Page.Email: tomwatson@csu.edu.auREFERENCESHon, L.C., & Grunig, J.E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.Retrieved October 12, 2003 from www.instituteforpr.comInstitute of Public Relations. (2003).Unlocking the potential of public relations – steering grouprecommendations. London: Author. Retrieved December 17, 2004 from www.ipr.org.ukInstitute of Public Relations & Communication Directors’ Forum. (2004). Best Practice in themeasurement and reporting of public relations and ROI. London: Author. Retrieved December17, 2004 from www.ipr.org.ukMurray, K., & White, J. (2004). CEO views on reputation management. London: ChimeCommunications.Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2005). Evaluating public relations - a best practice guide to publicrelations planning, research and evaluation. London: Kogan Page

PR Evaluation: It's All About Relationships

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bournemouth University Research Online