Let’s stop trying to measure PR.
Although PR measurement is almost always an exercise in either futility or smoke-and-mirrors, it is important to note that PR has substantial value. Even in an age where customers define brands based on their economic, experiential or emotional value, PR plays a critically important role in shaping attitudes and driving sales. PR has much greater impact on a brand than advertising, and plays a vital role in internal branding. As a result, the smartest branding tactic for almost all companies is to immediately increase their PR budget.
Every PR professional knows and understands this. CEOs who have squirmed under the harsh light of media scrutiny also know this. But everyone else feels the urge to place PR in the same category as, say, pencils and computers and force PR departments to justify or validate expenditures.
As a result of this unthinking pressure, PR departments and agencies have spent substantial sums to “measure” PR results. The effort started with clip counting (“PR by the pound”) and moved toward AVE (advertising value equivalency). AVE links the value of exposure to advertising rates, with some multipler ranging from 1.1 to 8 thrown in because the mentions have more credibility than advertising.
AVE has become the industry’s favorite whipping boy for three reasons. First, there is no research documenting a reliable “credibility multiplier.” Another is because appearance does not translate into action or even absorption by the target audience. Finally, results can be easily manipulated, with “credit” for an article with just a mention. With AVE, every agency can “prove” big-bang results from sending out a press release.
Despite these problems, a TEXTALL/Excel random sample of 4,200 PR professionals found that about one-third still use AVE to justify results. Sometimes, the rationalization for using AVE is almost laughable. “It’s just easier to go with a straight number,” says the co-founder of excom Communications in Los Angeles. Even more telling was the headline in a report about AVE: “Like it or not, PR pros use ad value equivalency to appease dollars-and-executives.” Appease?! That's a driver behind PR measurements?!
Another favorite PR measurement is before-and-after surveys. Sears Roebuck & Co. landed a positive story on The Oprah Winfrey Show about donating $20,000 worth of goods to needy families for Christmas. An article about the effort said, “The respondents who said they agreed with the statement ‘Sears is a quality company’ increased from 58% to 65%.”
Kudos to Sears for its generosity, and no doubt there are brand benefits from having 7% more people think that you are a “quality company.” But hard questions remain. What was the actual, measurable impact on sales and profitability? If Sears cannot answer that question, how can it determine the ROI from its $20,000 investment?
The current hot metric is “share of voice/discussion.” This metric is essentially based on the premise that the more the media is discussing your company, or raising an issue your company has a stake in, the more that target markets will buy your offering or believe your side. That’s a reasonable – although unproven – hypothesis, but measurement of share-of-voice is closer to voodoo than science. Take a large handful of corporate and competitive mentions, tag them with a positive, negative or neutral value, calculate a “net favorable media value” before eventually emerging – voila! – with a final “share of discussion.”
Again, with no link to profitability and sales, nothing is proved from these common methods other than you got your name in the paper. Additionally, with the growth of blogs and other online media, it has become even harder to prove a link between PR outputs and sales outcomes.
So how can PR justify its expenditures? The best way is to include PR as part of a comprehensive lead management system. Lead management systems can track leads from source to sale. This allows companies to not only determine the best sources of leads but also ensure that leads do not fall between the cracks.
According to Yankee Group, as many as 80% of all leads languish without follow-up or remarketing. Following up on these lost leads could increase sales by 10-20%, based on a survey by the CMO Council and the BPM Forum.
McGraw-Hill has even scarier data: These statistics, provided by McGraw Hill, are alarming: 18% of inquiries receive no information; 43% receive the information too late; 59% receive the wrong information; and 90% of all leads are never followed up.
Part of the problem is due to the eternal he-said, she-said battle between sales and marketing over lead handling and qualification. Clarifying this tiresome turf battle represents a major step from lead bungling to lead handling. Another issue is a lack of automated lead management systems, along with compensation or other incentives to ensure that lead management systems are maintained and used. Lead management systems can be quite expensive, but workable ones can be developed with a spreadsheet and a contact management system.
Other tips include:
- Define the lead management process: When a lead comes in, who get it? Who is responsible for qualification? What are the timetables for follow-up? What happens to leads that need to be followed up on in, say, six months?
- Get the source of every lead: Train everyone in the company, from the president to receptionist, to ask, “how did you hear about us?” If they don’t know, prompt with a source. An article? An ad? A friend? Record this information for future analysis.
- Distribute – and act on – leads quickly: Leads go cold after 48 hours. Additionally, numerous studies indicate that the first to contact a lead usually winds up with the business – regardless of price.
- Nurture your leads: Unfortunately, few buy after a single phone call or contact. Practice consultative selling. Learn their issues and objections, and be able to match your offering to their requirements.
A good lead management system that can evaluate, track and manage leads is the key to determining the effectiveness of your PR program. So stop throwing money at so-called PR “measurement” system. You might as well figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Instead, put those resources into a lead management system, and link that system to sales and profitability.
Great comments, Nick, but I have to wonder why PR people constantly fall back on a variety of senseless measurements to gauge their own success? Even tracking PR activities to sales leads is pointless if the client has no way to manage the lead once it's generated.
Clients have to define success for their agencies (whether they're PR, Advertising or some mix) and then it's up to us as professional communicators to figure out how those expectations can be met (assuming they can be met at all). Once we've figured out all of the steps required to get the customer where the client wants him, we can establish meaningful metrics that will not only interest the client but spur them on to action - because any metric that tracks real performance measures will reflect on the client's ability to follow-through as much as the agency's delivery.
Thanks for the excellent post.
Mike Bawden
President & CEO
Brand Central Station
Posted by: Mike Bawden | September 30, 2005 at 07:17 AM