Posts filed under ‘PR evaluation’
Webinar – what PR metric should I measure? 25th November 2020, 12.30 GMT
As part of the AMEC* Measurement Month, I am speaking as part of a webinar, please join us:
Webinar topic: Ask the Expert: What PR metrics should I measure?
Summary: Join members of the AMEC European chapter for a interactive Q&A discussion on the metrics that really matter. Ask our panel of Europe’s leading experts anything you like about metrics. From how they choose what to measure to the pros and cons of different metrics and what makes a good report.
Speakers:
Dr. Glenn O’Neil, Founder, Owl RE
Dr. Maya Koleva, Head of Research and Insight, Commetric
Dr. Martin Löser, Managing Director Insights, Kantar Media
Date: 25th November 2020, 12.30pm GMT
Register here: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/4416028451632/WN_LvsxNzJoS7-dHssPdZu8gw
*AMEC: International association for the measurement and evaluation of communication
Barcelona Principles 3.0 – communications evaluation
The Barcelona Principles – which set out the main principles for communication evaluation – have been updated – version 3.0.
Following is an explanation provided by AMEC.
1. Setting goals is an absolute prerequisite to communications planning, measurement, and evaluation.
The founding principle of SMART (specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, and time-bound) goals as a foundation for communications planning has been promoted to an essential prerequisite. It pushes measurement and evaluation as a core component of the planning process, articulating target outcomes and how progress towards these will be assessed.
2. Measurement and evaluation should identify outputs, outcomes, and potential impact.
Previously, the Principles recommended measuring outcomes, rather than simply counting outputs. The updated principles extend this to consider longer term impact of communications strategy.
3. Outcomes and impact should be identified for stakeholders, society, and the organization.
From the original focus on business metrics, such as sales and revenue, the 2020 update embraces a more holistic view of performance. It allows the model to be more inclusive of a broader range of organisations and communications roles that are not necessarily profit-driven.
4. Communication measurement and evaluation should include both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
“To understand the full impact of your work, it is crucial that you use the full suite of methods to measure those outcomes,” summarised Ben Levine AMEC Board Director in describing the evolution of this principle to not just quantify but also understand how messages are being received, believed and interpreted.
5. AVEs are not the value of communication.
The message remains consistent and clear; “we continue to believe that AVEs do not demonstrate the value of our work.” It is important that communications measurement and evaluation employs a richer, more nuanced, and multi-faceted approach to understand the impact of communications.
6.Holistic communication measurement and evaluation includes all relevant online and offline channels.
Our founding principle that social media can and should be measured is so obvious today. The 2020 iteration reflects the game-changing shift in social communications’ capabilities, opportunities, and influence, such that all relevant online and offline channels should be measured and evaluated equally. The AMEC measurement framework promotes clarity across earned, owned, shared, and paid channels to ensure consistency in approach towards a common goal.
7. Communication measurement and evaluation are rooted in integrity and transparency to drive learning and insights.
Sound, consistent, and sustained measurement calls for integrity and transparency in recognition of today’s attention to data privacy and stewardship as organisations comply with new regulations, such as GDPR. This is also a statement that measurement isn’t simply about data collection and tracking, but about learning from evaluation and applying insight back into communications planning. It recognises the need to be transparent about the context in which programmes are run and being aware of any bias that may exist in the tools, methodologies and interpretations applied.
AMEC global virtual summit on communication measurement 2020
AMEC has announced their global virtual summit on communication measurement for 2020:
20/20 FORESIGHT: Measurement Frameworks, Myths and New Horizons
The virtual summit will take place on 8-9 July 2020
Keynote speaker will be Distinguished Professor Jim Macnamara of University of Technology Sydney & LSE – Prof. Macnamara is a specialist in communication evaluation and his research is always very interesting.
Jim will present his latest research that inform his new book Beyond Post-Communication and an evaluation project that showed a €24 million return on investment from communication. In two contrasting case studies, Jim will show the negative impact of disinformation and post-truth and the key causes, compared with a ground-breaking case study in evaluation of corporate communication.
Conference fees:
-Standard attendee £350 + VAT
-AMEC Member £250 +VAT
Industry Partner Member (CIPR, ICCO, IPR, PRCA, PRSA) £250 +VAT
-Government/academics/not-for-profit organisations £200 +VAT
-Enterprise delegate offer (up to 15 delegates) £2000 +VAT
Measuring people power
MobLab has carried out a global study on how to measure people power – mobilising publics for campaigns and other initiatives. Here is an extract of the key takeaways
:
” key takeaways
For changemakers, if you’re not already measuring depth of supporter relationships and engagement (vs total numbers, or breadth), this report highlights a few ways to get started. Whether in a grassroots group, social movement, or an established NGO, tracking how committed people are to your mission (and to one another) and facilitating deeper relationships can be a big step forward.
For organisational leaders, this report is an urgent call to support cultures that are curious, innovative, and supporter- or people-centred. The results also clarified the importance of investing in staff and resources needed to build relationships with volunteers, grassroots, and community groups. The majority of the surveyed individuals found the very effort of measuring people power shifted and informed both tactics and strategy, guided day-to-day decision making, and was used to evaluate the past; essentially, to show them what was working and what wasn’t.
For funders, the results underscore the need to support organisations, groups and movements by investing in organising and power building, which don’t come with the same attractive metrics that we typically see in fundraising and digital advocacy. Funders should support both the implementation of sustained organising and supporter relationship building (outside of short term programme objectives) and ongoing development and experimentation in power building or “depth” metrics.”
Communication evaluation measurement month
November is communication evaluation measurement month! AMEC – the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication and its members and partners are hosting many events – online and in-person globally – check out the calendar >> 
Sketches from communication evaluation summit
If you missed the AMEC Summit on communication evaluation in May 2019 as I did, there are some great summary sketches of the main sessions by Redanredan. See an example below; well worth to check out:
November is communication measurement month!
November is AMEC’s communication measurement month. There are some great events going on all over the world, check out the calendar of events >>
New article: Pathways to use of campaigns’ evaluation findings
I’m very happy to share with you an article I co-authored – for those interested in campaigning, evaluation and evaluation use:
Highlights
- A categorization of six pathways to evaluation use is proposed.
- Evaluation use occurred slightly more non-linear than linear.
- Evaluation use was mostly unexpected.
- Overall meaning assigned to evaluation was linked to frequency of evaluation occurring.
- Evaluation use contributing to change was often indirect and not simple.
Abstract
This article presents a study on the pathways and processes regarding the use of evaluation findings of communication campaigns from two international organizations, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Several years after the completion of the campaigns and their evaluations, our research identified 28 instances of use and six instances of non-use of the evaluation results, of which the large majority being surprising in nature. Results showed that evaluation use facilitated formal and informal changes at the individual and the organizational level; and, this pattern occurred in a predominantly non-linear fashion, interconnected and overlapping, while gradually decreasing in time and space. Evaluation use was mostly unpredictable, which reflected how meanings are constructed by staff members, as they adjusted and interpreted the findings in opportunistic ways.
What to read on communication evaluation?
If you are like me and eager to read anything on evaluation and communications, this will be of interest to you. AMEC has an exhaustive reading list (pdf) put together by Prof. Jim Macnamara, that has a top ten “must reads” – many of them available online.
Say No to AVEs as a communications measure
A new campaign has been launched by the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication – AMEC to stamp out the use of AVEs – “Ad Value Equivalents” as a measure of communication and PR success. If you don’t know what an AVE is, it is basically where you look at how much coverage you have received in the news media (usually print) and then you estimate how much this coverage would have cost if you paid for it as advertising.
I think it’s a useless measure, as if we look at where “coverage” is happening today, it is a lot more fragmented than in just mainstream print media – and you can’t compare paid advertising with coverage. But still it persists. I recently saw a media monitoring dashboard of a major monitoring company that had AVE as a measure it offers its clients – that’s too bad. In the past 30 years of working in communications and evaluation I’ve never felt the need to use AVEs – there are so many more meaningful measures we can look at. Read more from the academics and industry as to why we need to say No to AVEs.
intelligent measurement 