Specifically Measure  
Measuring public relations effectiveness isn’t something to get to at the end of a PR program or campaign, it’s something to address at the very beginning.
 
Although there are many techniques to measure PR, the key to success is starting with one fundamental Beaupre & Co. mantra: the more specific the objective, the more measurable the objective. At Beaupre & Co. we call our particular approach to specificity “Measurement By Objectives.”
 
The single most common mistake made is general objectives that aren’t truly measurable. Here are a few classic examples:
 

• “Substantially increase visibility this calendar year.”
• “Orchestrate a highly successful launch of our new product.”
• “Measurably increase brand recognition.”

 
General objectives are improved by making them more precise. Here are a few hypothetical examples of better objective setting:
 

• “Measurably transform Carla Smith’s (Editor In Chief, Big Business Magazine) viewpoints about our company from negative to positive by December 31.”
• “Meet with the following 14 key industry analysts about our new product by May 29^th and obtain at least four positive “active” public testimonials by June 15 that can be leveraged in our late June press tour.”
• “Generate 400 sales leads per month directly correlated to our PR efforts.”

 
There’s a dramatic difference between the two. Adding specificity creates measurability. This concept can – and should – be applied to each and every strategic and tactical public relations undertaking. Remember: Specific ideas. Specific actions. Specific individuals. Specific media. Specific columns. Specific timeframes. Specific results you want to achieve.
 
One guiding caveat: make certain specific objectives can be measured and are achievable, otherwise you will create false objectives that can’t be met no matter how well intentioned or ambitious the effort.
 
 
Qualitative Measurement  
After precise objectives are set, it’s time to determine what other measurement yardsticks should be used. They generally fall into two camps: qualitative and quantitative.
 
Qualitative measurement is all about assessing the more subtle and subjectively interpretive “tough to read” dimensions. It is oriented toward individuals or small groups of people vs. statistically valid numbers. Qualitative measurement typically requires more customization but is usually more cost effective.
 
Two classic qualitative areas to measure are: (1) determining attitudes and beliefs of important individuals (vs. large groups of people at once) and (2) assessing media coverage quality (vs. measuring sheer quantity of coverage).
 
At Beaupre & Co., the measurement of key influencer beliefs is the strategic foundation upon which public relations programs are built. The firm’s “Belief Creation” methodology is centered around fundamentally transforming how key influencers regard a company, with the goal being to forge acceptance and create belief over time. Achieving this ultimately impacts media coverage because once people believe, the walls of excuses and non-newsworthiness perceptions come tumbling down.
 
Belief creation is measured using a variety of techniques including:
 

• baseline individual attitude measurement at the beginning of a PR program with subsequent baseline evaluations in six or 12 month cycles
• one-to-one in person discussions, phone calls or email outreach
• mail or online surveys structured for particular individuals (vs. general surveys)
• interpretive assessment of written/published information
• focus groups

 
The key to qualitative attitudinal measurement is making it as personal and one-to-one as possible.
 
Media coverage quality is measured using a variety of techniques including:
 

• key message adoption – i.e. are key messages getting picked up by important media
• consistency of media coverage -- i.e. are there any “black holes” in media coverage or is it consistent week by week, month by month
• breadth of media coverage -- i.e. does coverage appear in a small range of media or is it more widespread, encompassing more media diversity and richness
• media positiveness – i.e. when media visibility is achieved, is it negative, neutral or positive?
• depth – distinguishing between mere media mentions and more in-depth coverage

 
Quantitative Measurement  
Quantitative public relations measurement is centered around bigger numbers that are predictably reflective of large groups of people or the public at large. It also involves the assessment of public relations results based on raw numbers. This type of research is typically more time intensive and expensive.
 
Some of the many types of quantitative PR measurement include:
 

• counting the total volume of media “hits” and mentions in given timeframes
• accumulating media hits by type of media
• tracking inbound sales leads and correlating them with PR
• measuring the quantity of interviews and/or in-person meetings in given timeframes
• conducting mail, online or phone-based public opinion surveys that yield statistically valid samples
• on-floor attitude polling that yields a large sample
• year-end or campaign-end reports that sum up results based on quantity
• web-based surveys yielding large sample sizes

 
When to use what  
An effective public relations program would ideally incorporate all three elements, i.e. measurement by specific objectives, qualitative measurement and quantitative measurement. This mix provides the kind of balance that makes the evaluation of PR programs complete.
 
Specific objectives should be used all the time for every strategic and tactical endeavor. They don’t cost a dime and yield huge positive impact. Qualitative measurement is “the tree.” It is very important because it yields “behind the curtain” insight that quantitative measurement can’t provide. However, because it is geared for individuals and small numbers, it is impossible to correlate qualitative findings to large groups or initiatives. Quantitative measurement is “the forest.” This data is more reflective of what large groups of people think and conveys an accurate big picture view. However, quantitative research misses the subtlety of detail and is thus often more difficult to interpret.
 

No More Excuses  
Every area of an organization is (or should be) measured and evaluated against a clear-cut set of standards. PR shouldn’t be any different. After all, the function that can’t be accurately evaluated is subject to criticism, confusion and budget cuts when times get tough (like right now).