Posts filed under ‘Communication evaluation’
More on the Barcelona Declaration of Research Principles
Further to my earlier post, you can read more about the Barcelona Declaration on a special page of the Institute for Public Relations (IPR) website.
The next step is that the principles will be refined based on feedback received during the Summit in Spain and additional input being gathered – you too can give an input, leave a comment here on the IPR page>>
First global standard of PR measurement
Yesterday, here at the AMEC summit, the first global standard of PR measurement, the “Barcelona Declaration of Research Principles” were adopted, as listed here:
Barcelona Declaration of Research Principles
1. Goal setting and measurement are fundamental aspects of any PR programmes.
2. Media measurement requires quantity and quality – clip cuts are generally meaningless.
3. Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs) do not measure the value of PR and do not inform future activity; they measure the cost of media space.
4. Social media can and should be measured.
5. Measuring outcomes is preferred to measuring media results.
6. Business results can and should be measured where possible.
7. Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement.
Interesting to note that three of the principles mentions media measurement – reflecting the inbalance in the industry towards measuring media coverage. Hopeful ly this obsession with counting clips can be overcome and a move towards measuring outcomes is seen.
At the AMEC summit, the PR Society of America, presented its latest work on PR measurement, as you can see in the slides below. It’s well worth a look as it focuses on metrics for communications outcomes:
Researching campaign messages – wrinkles or cancer?
Here is a fascinating study – and story – about message effectiveness of campaigns.
For years, campaigns against excessive use of sunbeds (pictured above) – which are used to tan your skin – have focused their messages on the fact that excessive use can cause skin cancer.
Now a study from Northwestern University (USA) has found that the most persuasive message for young women is not the risk of cancer – but the risk of getting wrinkles.
It is an interesting example of where testing messages on the intended audiences can really help to determine the most effective message for a given group.
Web analytics and communications evaluation
When evaluating a communications project, I often consider the web metrics aspect of the project, if a website played an important part in the project. Web metrics are statistics generated by tools that measure website traffic, such as how many people visited a web page, where did they come from, etc.
Seth Duncan has recently produced for the US-based Institute for PR a very interesting paper on this subject:
The paper focuses on the aspect of referral (e.g. which is the most “efficient” source of traffic for a website) but also contains some intruiging descriptions of advanced statistical methods for web analytics.
Communications and behaviour change
Here is a fascinating study produced by UK government’s Central Office of Information that summarises what influences people’s behaviour and the implications for communicators seeking to influence it.
Some of the key implications for communication programmes and campaigns that come out of the study include:
- Communications should not be viewed in isolation
- Developing a practical behavioural model can help make communications more effective at influencing behaviour
- Paid-for media opportunities (which traditionally account for the biggest part of the government communications budget) are not always the most trusted sources
- Understanding behaviour and its influences will enable us to harness the most efficient and effective communications channels.
- Understanding behaviour will support more robust and meaningful evaluation.
Standardisation of PR Evaluation Metrics?
The UK government’s Central Office of Information (yes, I know it’s rather Orwellian sounding…) has produced a set of metrics for measuring PR campaigns: “Standardisation of PR Evaluation Metrics” (pdf).
Frankly, they are disappointing. The title is deceiving, it should be called “Standardisation of media monitoring metrics”. As that all the document covers – the superficial stuff – “reach”, “Favourability of coverage”, etc. These are “outputs” of PR activities.
But what about metrics for measuring “outcomes”? These don’t get a mention. Well there is an admission but you have to dig deep, they do say:
“It is worth bearing in mind that these standardised core metrics for media evaluation are only one component of any campaign evaluation. It is crucial to agree specific key performance indicators (KPIs) at the outset of a campaign.”
So they admit it, these are metrics for media coverage only. And no guidance is given on these KPIs (that are typically “outcome” level). If you are interested in learning more about metrics for “outcomes”, I’d recommend you start with the excellent guide from the Institute of PR: “Guidelines and Standards for Measuring the Effectiveness of PR Programs and Activities” (pdf).
AVE to WMC – A wolf in sheep’s clothes?
The Institute for Public Relations has published a new research paper explaining a new media measurement concept called “Weighted Media Cost”. But is this anything new – or simply the dreaded Ad Value Equivalent (AVE) in disguise – a wolf in sheep’s clothes? PR measurement guru KD Paine certainly thinks so.
I think that any measurement based on media space generated by PR efforts is bound to be flawed and increasingly illrelevant. Why?
- Generating media space is rapidly loosing importance as a PR objective – particularly with the growth of other ways that people can obtain information. These measurements typically look at print media – which is a media with a declining readership base
- Measuring how much media space was generated takes the focus away from the more important objectives to measure – what did PR efforts actually change in terms of knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of target audiences. That’s harder to do, but it’s worth the effort…!
Evaluating Strategic Communication for Avian Influenza/Pandemic Influenza
As the world is focused on the current flu pandemics, we have seen many efforts to communicate prevention and treatment approaches.
And what about how to measure the results of such communication efforts? Here is an interesting set of guidelines from UNICEF on this issue:
Although it’s a technical document, it provides interesting insight into sampling and interviewing techniques for evaluating communication campaigns.
Workshop on communications evaluation
I recently conducted a one day training workshop for the staff of Gellis Communications on communications evaluation. We looked at several aspects including:
- How to evaluate communication programmes, products and campaigns;
- How to use the “theory of change” concept;
- Methods specific to communication evaluation including expert reviews, network mapping and tracking mechanisms;
- Options for reporting evaluation findings;
- Case studies and examples on all of the above.
Gellis Communications and myself are happy to share the presentation slides used during the workshop – just see below (these were combined with practical exercises – write to me if you would like copies)
intelligent measurement 