Our Blog

I’ll be the first to admit it.  Public relations folks (like me) aren’t usually the first professionals sought out by the top executives when the time comes to make a big decision.  And we’re generally not the first ones consulted on overall business strategy.  Maybe we should be.  Maybe we shouldn’t.  I’m not really here to argue that.

What I am here to argue about is the measurement of ROI on public relations.  You see, ROI on PR has become the holy grail of the PR profession as of late, as we continue our never-ending quest to unseat the bean counters and lawyers to win that proverbial “seat at the board room table.”  I agree with many of my colleagues and peers that ROI or other forms of quantitative measurement of the value of our efforts is important.  After all, it proves to our clients and bosses that public relations—especially media relations—is more than just voodoo produced by a shaman; more than some intangible “nice-to-have.”

967355_abacusUnfortunately, I don’t believe there is a single formula out there which really, truly produces a thoroughly objective result.  I don’t try to pretend otherwise with my clients.

Will some of the quantitative gurus laugh off my conclusion?  Not likely—they’re probably not reading this.  What I’m saying, however, does fly in the face of most of what you’ll see coming from the PR associations or their members these days.

Believe me, I really, truly wish I could show a client that his investment of  X dollars in my services produces X dollars times 3 in return.  I get that we need to try to measure, using a relative baseline to create comparative results.  I get that.

But I still believe that whatever formula we concoct, it will be flawed.  Why?

 

1.         Public relations is the practice of psychology.  The point of public relations is to influence perception and behavior.  It’s as much psychology as it is art.  Short of measuring the electrical activity of each prospect’s brain (want to be the one who asks for THAT in the budget?), I’m not sure how we truly and comprehensively measure the exact impact of our PR efforts as they relate to the purchase decision.  For example, if I manage to place a positive story in the publication I’m targeting, and it accurately depicts our key message…now what?  How do I find out if it worked?  Do we do a survey for each new customer thereafter and rely on his/her memory as to what, exactly, moved him to make the purchase (“Um…the ad I looked at for three seconds in the Everytown Times four weeks ago!  No wait—it was the quote from your SVP in an article two months back.”).  We’re still relying on people who aren’t really paying attention to the how’s and why’s of our efforts…subjective and shaky at best.

 

2.         No matter what variables we use to link behavior to message, some will always be subjective.     So what, therefore, qualifies as a “win” when it comes to PR?  We can all agree that some publications, websites or other news outlets are more reputable than others.  But does that mean publication X automatically has more credibility with your particular prospect than publication Y?  Who gets to decide if a two sentence quote in the New York Times is better than a feature article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution?  Is that more of a PR “win?” And, while we’re at it, are three sentences always more effective than two?  Would a feature on page 3 trump a paragraph on page one?  If somebody knows the answer to these questions, and can back it up with solid quantitative proof, I’d love to meet him or her.

Plus, there’s the small matter of tying that high impact message in the high impact publication to the actual impact.  After all, if a tree falls in the forest…

Now please don’t get me wrong.  We still have to try to measure the effect of our PR efforts.  And there are many, many indicators we shouldn’t simply discard.  We’ll see the spike in website traffic (or lack thereof) after a good (or bad) PR initiative, and be able to draw conclusions from it.  We’ll note the increase of calls to our call centers or offices.  We’ll note new demographics or new names on our marketing lists.   The “workaround” for quantification has been setting goals at the beginning, which is reasonable enough.  We’ll decide that 20,000 new hits on our web site, driven there by an article in such-and-such news, is a “win.” Indeed, a big part of planning the PR campaign is agreeing to the objectives and goals in advance, and setting that baseline.  I’m absolutely not making the case for shunning quantification altogether.  But I fear that quantification has taken on a life of its own.  When it comes to public relations and its return, to offer comprehensive and 100% accurate measurement of ROI is, in my humble opinion, not completely possible.

Prove me wrong (or try to sell me Viagra) in the comments below!

Comments ( 2 )

    • Michelle Esso says:

      I agree 100%, Brian. Organizations should be setting their own KPIs and measuring results based on meeting their goals, but there really is no magic formula for measuring PR results. Can you get this article published in CEO magazine?

    • brian says:

      Thanks Michelle! I agree. As to CEO magazine, I hadn’t considered it. Maybe I’ll give it a shot!

    The comments are now closed.