Chapter 2
PR and Measurement

The History of Measurement in Public Relations and Communications

The single biggest challenge that PR pros have been facing since the very birth of the industry has been measurement.

Just google PR measurement and you'll see tons of articles explaining how advertising value equivalents (AVEs) don't work, how we need a new set of tools to measure PR results, how PR hasn't adjusted to the new era of digital and metrics, and so on.

The problems associated with measuring the effectiveness of PR have their roots in a lot of insecurities over the last century within the PR industry itself and a number of failed attempts to find a measurement framework that can be universally accepted and approved not just by PR professionals themselves but also by clients, stakeholders, shareholders, and other interest groups.

If you do a little bit of research into the topic of measurement for communications you'll no doubt find Professor Tom Watson of Bournemouth University in England, who has been researching public relations measurement and evaluation for the past 20 years. He says: "I'd like to say that it's a story of continuous improvement in public relations practice and its measurement and evaluation, but that's not the case. I find that the emphasis on consumer and marketing-led PR since the 1950s has fostered poor practices, although major corporations have moved ahead" (Watson, 2011).

This inability to find one way to measure PR and prove its worth to the bottom line is what has driven the industry's negative perception and reputation. A lot of people have a firm belief that PR cannot be measured and so choose not to invest in it, which, in turn, causes the industry to suffer.

So how did PR get there?

Mainly by relying on metrics and methods that are quantifiable but absolutely irrelevant as they don't relate back to business goals and outcomes but rather to tactical outputs, particularly focused on the results of publicity or typical media relations, as we said earlier.

Let's take a look at some of those irrelevant metrics:

1. Media impressions: This is the number of visitors a certain publication has. No matter how spectacular your article is, it's not going be read by absolutely every one of those visitors nor could you be certain that those people really are your ideal target audience. This is why impressions as a metric tell you nothing about whether you've reached the right people and the right number of people you need to hit your business goals.
2. Number of placements or clippings: This is about calculating in how many media outlets you appeared. As with impressions, counting how many mentions your company has received tells you nothing about whether those mentions have brought you customers.

Now you see, these two were used back in the 1930s and 1940s by the U.S. government and, ironically, are still used today, as Professor Watson explains in his research paper, "The Evolution of Evaluation-the Accelerating March Towards the Measurement of Public Relations Effectiveness" (Watson, 2011a, 5-6).

AVEs? Still?

But there's another, even more dangerous metric: advertising value equivalents (AVEs). This method arose with the increasing focus of management on the bottom line as an attempt to find a way to show the dollar value of PR activities.

AVEs involve calculating column inches of published articles or the earned seconds of airtime on TV and radio and multiplying the total of those by the advertising rate of the media where the coverage appeared.

AVEs are still being used today although they are flawed and often misleading. Here are some of the reasons they are not well suited for use today:

1. The publicity could be negative so you can't compare it with advertising, which is always positive because you pay big money for it and therefore control the message.
2. The articles could mention competitors or speak more positively about other companies than yours, unlike advertising, which is just about your brand because you pay for it.
3. The editorials could appear in totally irrelevant media channels where no one from your target audience is. You probably wouldn't do that with advertising as it's expensive and you'd be very careful where you put your money.

But the most significant reason for the ineffectiveness of AVEs is that they measure cost-not value-by calculating the equivalent media space and time for advertising thus making the method flawed. In his PR Metrics Report, Jim Macnamara from the University of Technology Sydney exclaims, "No one in marketing or management would measure the value of advertising simply in terms of its cost-it must be a good campaign because it cost $7 million!" (Macnamara 2015, 34).

What's more, some PR professionals not only compare advertising rates but go beyond that to add multipliers of the respective ad value that are three, four, or five times higher or even more. They do this because editorial and media content is supposed to be more credible and valuable than self-promotional advertising.

But let's not forget that PR today is not just publicity or media relations, so AVEs can't help in the world of digital and social media communications. Would you really compare the advertising rate for a tweet?

The Barcelona Principles

Luckily, the Barcelona Principles were developed in 2010 urging PR pros to move away from advertising value equivalents and agree upon a new, minimum standard of measurement that actually shows the value of PR for an organization.

The Barcelona Principles comprise seven guidelines to measurement that focus on outcomes and business results rather than media results and outputs.1

The first version of the Barcelona Principles was introduced in 2010 as follows:

1. Importance of Goal Setting and Measurement
2. Measuring the Effect on Outcomes Is Preferred to Measuring Outputs
3. The Effect on Business Results Can and Should Be Measured Where Possible
4. Media Measurement Requires Quantity and Quality
5. AVEs Are Not the Value of Public Relations
6. Social Media Can and Should Be Measured
7. Transparency and Replicability Are Paramount to Sound Measurement

In 2015, a revised and updated version was published to serve as a foundation to any communications program or function, not just for PR. Here's how the guidelines were updated:2

1. Goal Setting and Measurement Are Fundamental to Communication and Public Relations
2. Measuring Communication Outcomes Is Recommended Versus Only Measuring Outputs
3. The Effect on Organizational Performance Can and Should Be Measured Where Possible
4. Measurement and Evaluation Require Both Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
5. AVEs Are Not the Value of Communications
6. Social Media Can and Should Be Measured Consistently with Other Media Channels
7. Measurement and Evaluation Should Be Transparent, Consistent, and Valid

As much as I like this new focus, the Barcelona Principles are still not a framework, they simply provide guidance, which is why I don't believe they've been widely adopted. They make sense, yes, but acting on them is left up to individuals. That's not how most people change their behavior, however. Most need something that spells out much more clearly how they will actually measure the results of PR efforts.

AMEC's Integrated Evaluation Framework

Then, in 2016, along came AMEC's Integrated Evaluation Framework that puts the emphasis on setting objectives and measuring outcomes based on those objectives.3 Its interactive version is a tool that provides more than just guidance. It's very intuitive and simple to use so that any new practitioner (or even a student) can follow the steps to plan, execute, measure, and report on a fully integrated communications campaign.

The framework spans through each PESO (paid, earned, shared, owned) channel and looks at the following points to get you to start planning your PR program (note, the order is important):

1. Objectives: what you want to achieve for the organization and for your communication.
2. Inputs: what you need in preparation for communication.
3. Activity: things you do to plan and produce your communication.
4. Outputs: what you put out that is received by target audiences.
5. Outtakes: what your audiences take from and do with your communication.
6. Outcomes: the effect that your communication has on audiences.
7. Impact: the results that are caused, in full or in part, by your communication.

Now, some of those terms might be confusing, so AMEC helps us here, too, with a great taxonomy table that provides more information about those points, including key steps, metrics, milestones, examples, and methods of evaluation for each.4

The new AMEC framework is more than just a measurement tool; it's a planning and execution tool that makes you decide on the appropriate metrics and choose the right activities, outputs, outtakes, and so on before you begin any PR activities. It's a strategic tool to improving and measuring organizational performance, but it is quite vast and detailed for the...