In the world of marketing research, there are two established types of information – qualitative and quantitative.  Each one has its specific value, since they provide different types of data as listed below. 

Quantitative research uses fixed numerical values like a 1-5 scale to determine and quantify information that is desired.  These are most notorious as the polls that drive so much policy in the US these days – as our elected officials revert to sheer numerical guidance as the rationale for their decisions and actions. 

Qualitative research includes surveys, focus groups and other means of dialog that provide insight rather than mathematic certainty, and are ideal for determining ‘softer’ attributes like brand positioning, reasons for actions, and other intrinsic values that can’t be easily measured. 

Marketers realize the need for both types of information, and are comfortable working with experts to determine the best methodology to get the necessary information.  If you want to know what people think about your company or issue, you’re better off using open-ended questions and qualitative research.  But if you want to know specifically how you rank compared to competitors, that should be quantified through a short close-ended survey.

So you’re asking yourself, what does this have to do with PR metrics?  My answer is that all marketing activities can be measured, but not all of them can be quantified.  Some have to be qualified because of their nature. But in the zealousness to justify an expense to a number-crunching, non-marketing executive (read CFO, Senior VP or CEO), numerous marketers and their agencies have attempted marketing alchemy. They are trying to quantify the unquantifiable in order to apply an ROI to the measurement of activity.  Rather than realizing that PR and most other marketing is a qualitative expense, they fabricate all sorts of novel ways to ‘measure’ the added value of their activity.  But in reality, the added value is not something that can be quantified as a calculated ROI, any more than other business expenses which traditionally are immune to this sort of calculation.

For example, I’ve never heard of anyone calculating ROI on their corporate rent.  Think about it a second – if $/square foot was used to determine ROI, then would increasing the best salesperson’s office by 3x generate a 3x growth in sales?  How do you determine the value of a square foot in accounting versus marketing or engineering?  Instead, I believe that rent has a qualitative ROI.  As COO for Tech Image, I determine the percentage of revenue I’m willing to allocate to rent, and then I find the best space for that amount.  The factors I value are location, view, flexibility, etc. which can’t be readily quantified, but certainly effect quality.  In 20+ years of leasing space, I’ve never had a broker suggest such an ROI line of reasoning for justifying his or her recommendation.

It’s About Quality, not Quantity
So why do we continually try to quantify what we can’t?  It’s not like this is a new phenomenon – people have been attempting this since the second advertisement was produced.  I believe it’s because people are unwilling to put in the effort to think through and qualify the value.  It’s easier to attempt to quantify with numbers like ad equivalency, gross impressions or column inches. However, these contrived attempts to place a numeric value on publicity or advertising are doomed from the start, primarily because they cannot truly measure what they are tracking.  A fully integrated marketing plan creates a whole greater than the sum of the parts, and that interlocking is what makes the program succeed.  If you live in a brick house, which brick is the most valuable?  Can you quantify the ROI of any one brick against?  Again, why would you even try is the better question.

Now this does not mean that I am against any form of measurement – quite to the contrary.  But I am against attempts to trivialize something as complex as marketing communications by reducing it to a formula that creates a $x in = $y out mindset.  Commodities can be priced like that, complexities cannot.  Even in advertising, the numeric valuations fall short - everyone knows it, but all abide by it.  Marketers perform focus groups to test creative (qualitative), and then run post-buy analyses to determine how many rating points were bought (quantitative), but even that still doesn’t connect the dots absolutely.  I can buy tons of airtime to run the world’s worst creative ad every 15 minutes and it will generate some level of awareness.  Or I can spend money creating the Macintosh 1984 commercial and run it once, and 21 years later people still know what I’m talking about.  Do me a favor and measure the ROI on that.

Meaningful PR Measurements
So how do we make PR measurement meaningful?  It really becomes a personal decision that should reflect the business approach of your organization.  What exactly do you want to measure, and why?  Do you want to measure tactical implementation (quantitative) and create a hypothetical valuation model, or would you rather evaluate progress towards your strategic objectives (qualitative)?  There are relevant ways to do either one, which I’ll highlight in this section.  Either way I recommend this process as an annual starting point:

1. Determine the business goal you are trying to achieve with PR
2. Define the expectation of your results for the program
3. Do pre-and post-campaign measurement if necessary
4. Evaluate the body of work at campaign/year end to see if it was on target
5. Evaluate the impact on sales, morale and market positioning
6. Evaluate the overall cost versus your gain(s) to determine satisfaction

Quantifying Measurements:
If you’re looking to quantify your PR program, there are several approaches that can generate a set of metrics for reference on a continuing basis. These are:

Clip counts:
The most basic measurement is to look at incidence.  Some people try to assign a monetary value to each hit, by concocting ‘equivalencies’ based on advertising rates or multiplying circulation figures to determine ‘impressions’.  TI doesn’t recommend either of these measurements to its clients.  Instead, we recommend quantifying the results against the type of coverage desired to see if the program is on course.  If you’re running a thought leadership program, then the bulk of your efforts should generate results that are in depth by-lines, etc., rather than mere mentions or announcements.  By benchmarking the type of result against the original plan, you will have a better sense of effectiveness and execution.

Online activity: 
This is an emerging measurement that illustrates recent efforts and the effectiveness of a campaign, although it too is not absolute.  There are several metrics that can be measured:

Clicks:  Although PR can’t guarantee Web site listings in stories, tracking Web traffic after story releases is a reasonable tool for measuring cause and effect.  Many TI clients report spikes in activity following a significant article.

Google results:   Search engines provide data on the number of mentions found for each search, which provides an opportunity to do low budget, coarse-filtered pre-and post-campaign analysis.  Since there is no expiration date on the Internet, if you did a search on your company today, and recorded the number of results it listed, that would give you a data point for the size of your Internet “shadow.”  In a year, run it again and see how many more mentions you have.  That would be a direct correlation to coverage and publicity during the past year.  Linking key words into your Web site, releases and media messages will also help increase this number.  And a high number is good, because that is how search engines rank results.  By creating a higher number, you’ll be viewed as more relevant and moved to the front of a search list.

Qualifying Measurements:
There are several options to consider when you’re looking to qualify your program performance.  Again, the six steps above should be considered, then determine if any of these options work for you:

Pre- and post-campaign surveys: 
If your goal is to influence market perception, consumer attitude, or company/product attributes, then this research is invaluable.  Pre-campaign testing identifies rankings or uncovers attitudes about your company that can be addressed via a communications plan.  Once completed, running a similar set of interviews will illustrate just how much change occurred, and then you can determine if it was worthwhile. 

Messaging accuracy and clarity:
Evaluate your best hits and determine the percentage where the core messaging is presented accurately. Is it a significant majority of the time?  If not, remedial messaging or media coaching might be required.  A badly messaged placement can do more harm than no placement, especially if it’s a well-targeted hit. You can also measure the ratio of positive to negative coverage, and see if it’s in the right place.  These can become metrics that provide context to continuing programs year after year.

Metrics are tools that help guide your program to success.  Just as you need a plan to set a reference point for progress, you need to create metrics for your campaign so you can remain on course, or adjust it consciously when necessary, due to market conditions, product delays and other things outside your control.

Tech Image encourages its clients to determine a meaningful metric for success, and then monitor the PR program accordingly.  Any of the above methods can be used, and will help keep all parties on track and ensure that expectations are realized.   Your Tech Image account manager will work with you to develop a reporting framework that provides continuing visibility into the accuracy and effectiveness of your program, based on the measurement approach you choose. 

That should be the ultimate reason for measurement in the first place – not to grade or punish efforts, but to help apply a context for what is working and what else needs to be accomplished.  Just remember that while ROI can be applied to measure expenses, it is not always a viable, relevant metric to measure value.