Monday, September 20, 2010

Research Results: Causing Confusion in the Universal Language of the PR Campaign

Research for PR campaigns throughout the world can be done for various reasons with one reason remaining unanimous over all, obtaining results. These results are necessary in order to feel self-assured that the practioner’s hard work and efforts did not go to waste in their PR campaign. That is why all over the globe measurement of results, as well as the interpretations of these measurements helps to define PR success.

Yet, in a recent study found in this UK edition of PR Week, PR professionals were said not to place much emphasis on measurement of their campaign results. In fact, in a poll of 100 large companies, 55% of the companies believed the proportion of a PR budget that should be spent on measurement was only between 1 and 10%.
Reasons why the numbers for measurement of campaign results are dwindling  world-wide comes to light inside this U.S. PR Week article, which includes many PR practioners do not want to take the time nor know how to measure their campaign results.  It all started with the controversial issue if PR practioners should be paid based on the results their campaigns bring. Known as PBR or “payment by results” Mark Westaby, chairman of the Association of Measurement and Evaluation Companies of Metrica argues that “attempts at PBR are frequently doomed to failure because the criteria for measurement are often misunderstood, poorly planned or even unrealistic”.
It also does not help that the U.K. PR Week study concluded that 22 % of companies do not define the business objectives they want to meet in a PR campaign before starting, a big part in helping come measurement time to see what exactly can be measured. Not defining business objectives can also lead to many problems such as wasting time and money which the textbook, Advertising and Public Relations Research, notes as one of the most important aspects when conducting research for a campaign. It’s no wonder research results are failing to be measured in campaigns if PR officials aren’t taking the rights steps to insure measurability in objectives is even achievable given the sources one has.

Possible ways the article suggests to fix this lack of research initiative includes setting a standard form of measurement to be used throughout the whole industry. Yet, Westaby of the U.S PR Week article thinks otherwise and said, "There is no way that the industry can have a standard. You can't shoe-horn results - a standard oversimplifies the problem”. Instead he suggests that the industry focus on education.

Personally, with a lack of measurement tools being the problem, I feel that a plausible suggestion is referring to levels of evaluation. For example how  Russian Standard Vodka used the "outreach level" to measure the results in the media to see how well their campaign was received. In the campaign here from U-Talk Marketing,  an evaluation that the company did for their recent ‘Originals’ campaign by hosting a concert sponsored by the vodka is posted as reaching  coverage inside of the “Metro, The Sun, Daily Mirror, Stylist, Daily Express, Closer, MSN, FHM, and Kiss 100” in which,  “more than 26 million opportunities was seen in print, online, radio and broadcast coverage”. Overall Russian Standard Vodka was happy with their results of reaching these noted media outlets, but I would argue that more measurement is needed to really see if these ads reached their target market. That is where the outcome level which measures the results in the target public on awareness, comprehension and attitudes should be evaluated as well. Has more validity in seeing if the campaign was successful since the product actually would have reached  its specific target.

Luckily, U.K. PR week concluded its study saying that that businesses are finding ways to outsource their research evaluation departments in which “56 % of companies said to be using an independent company to carry out media evaluation compared to only 33 % in the last four years”.  Even though measurement is something I believe PR practioners should be expected to do themselves, at least input is going into seeing how well a campaign is received. Additionally, this growing trend could mean the advancement of research evaluation and can bring forth more successful campaigns that PR officials can actually see results for worldwide.  Only time will tell. 

No comments:

Post a Comment