Results of the fourth annual Public Relations Generally Accepted Practices Study (GAP IV) were released today. The study is published by the USC Annenberg Strategic Public Relations Center (SPRC), and is intended to provide the PR profession with data on evaluation, organization, budgeting, emerging trends, use of outside agencies, perceptions of the PR function and other important topics.
The study has several interesting findings, but let's take a look at what the findings say about Evaluation/Measurement:
- Respondents spent only 4% of their total PR budgets on evaluation
- 'Ability to Quantify Results' (12%) ranked low on the reasons a company would choose to use an outside agency ('Additional arms & legs' (51%) and 'Complements our internal capabilities' (47%) were the two highest-ranked factors)
- 64% of all respondents (77% of F-500 respondents) report to the C-Suite in their organizations
- The differences in metrics used by organizations where PR reports to the C-Suite versus those used where PR reports to Marketing are dramatic. C-Suite metrics tend to be more strategic and organizationally focused while metrics used by those reporting to Marketing were more media and sales-oriented
- 'Influence on corporate reputation' has been the highest scoring metric in each of the four GAP studies, yet as the authors point out, "there are currently no consistently reliable, generally-accepted, quantifiable methods for correlating PR activities with reputation."
- PR is seen as contributing to the bottom line success of the company (5.30 v. top-ranked Finance at 5.59)
To amplify the fourth bullet above, in companies reporting to the C-Suite, it was significantly more likely the following metrics were used for evaluation:
- Crisis avoidance/mitigation
- Influence on corporate culture
- Influence on corporate reputation
In companies where PR reports to Marketing, it was significantly more likely the following metrics were used:
- Contribution to sales
- Total circulation of clips
- Total number of clips
To me, there are two key learnings from the study:
- Confirming my personal experience and observations (see my earlier post), PR increasingly is reporting to the C-Suite and is seen as playing a strategic role within organizations, and
- There is a tremendous gap between what most companies actually measure today and the new requirements to measure how PR is impacting the organization
The measurement gap refers to the fact that the measurement industry today is focused on media content analysis (outputs measurement) while organizations increasingly value PR for our contributions in moving the needle on reputation, culture or sales (outcomes). We may have great data on number of impressions or % of articles containing key messages, but how are we proving the value of PR's contribution to the more strategic outcomes the C-Suite demands? This is a great challenge to the measurement community – we are not necessarily measuring the right things (media clips), and lack agreed-upon metrics and approaches for the types of measurement our new environment demands. We need to evaluate the tangible contributions of PR (e.g. sales) as well as the intangible (e.g. brand or reputation). And we need to not only look at PR's contribution to sales, but to PR's contribution in reducing costs (e.g. regulation or litigation) and reducing risks (e.g. new product introductions, downsizing). So many challenges – so little time.
Thanks for reading – Don B.
Disclaimer: The author is a member of the Professional Advisory Committee for the GAP Study
metricsman.wordpress.com 
Recent Comments