Accountability No Longer Optional

11 Apr

 

In my last post, we discussed that one aspect of having a ‘seat at the table’ is that the public relations function needs to be more accountable for results.  While accountability may take several forms, at the most basic level it is about being responsible for ones actions and outcomes, i.e. did you/your organization do what you said you would do?  So how can we operationalize this concept in public relations?

We believe there are three fundamental opportunities for accountability across the public relations programming lifecycle: 

 

  1. Quantify Opportunity/Problem – At the time of assignment, the PR team applies a little Left Brain thinking and quantifies the magnitude of the problem or opportunity that PR will address.  This was discussed in a previous post.
  2. Solution Quantification – Once the programming is developed, but before it is approved and implemented, we should quantify the anticipated results for the program.  This step answers the question, “If we accept this proposal/plan, what results or value might we reasonably expect?”  It also sets up the third step… 
  3. Quantify Results – The third stage of the framework occurs post-implementation and is the traditional measurement and evaluation phase. 

The essence of accountability occurs when we compare the results we “promised” in stage 2 to the actual results measured in stage 3.  The real kicker here is stage 2, which we may call ‘Solution Quantification’.  PR professionals have long been reluctant to predict in any specific way how much coverage, for example, will occur as a result of a given program or campaign.  You may have heard this reluctance expressed as ‘PR is an art, not a science’.  Regardless of the merits of this argument, we cannot use it as an excuse not to be accountable.  Accountability is not easy.  It is essential however if the PR function is to maximize its potential impact on the organization.  –Don B   

One Response to “Accountability No Longer Optional”

  1. David Phillips April 12, 2006 at 2:47 pm #

    Don
    There are other issues at play.
    I was interested in Wolfgang Ulaga and Andreas Eggert paper in the European Journal of Marketing (Volume: 40 Issue: 3/4 Page: – 327) which identifies that established models of buyer-seller relationships do not reflect managerial emphasis on supplier performance evaluation when modelling business relationships.

    The paper proposes that relationship value should be included as a key constituent in such models.

    It is a drum I have been banging for a while.

    But, if there is such a thing as ‘relationship value’ where does it appear on the ballance sheet?

    As a concept this is important because it take the effect of PR activity off P&L (as long as one subscribes to the view that PR is about relationship management – but what else?) and puts it on the Ballance Sheet.

    I know it’s hard to think in these terms and there is a need for a lot more research to be able to identify relationships as one of the intangible assets in financial reporting but, as I point out in the current eddition of the Journal Corporate Communications: ‘Relationships are the core value for organisations’.

    Without relationships all else is for naught.

    So perhaps its worth it.

    PR evaluation has a new goal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: