Measurement- taking PRide!

Every year, I try to learn a new skill that is relevant to my profession. In 2012 I was ambitious and tackled two- learning how to use Twitter better, and making sure my students really, really understand the importance of what is going on in measurement and evaluation.  The latter is one of those “slow burn” issues that should be taken more seriously, but all too often isn’t.  And yet….we are at a defining moment in the development of public relations and corporate communications.

I’m talkiing about the emergence of the new Valid Metrics Matrix, a way of confronting squarely the PR profession’s previous inability to demonstrate its value in terms that work for the C Suite (that is, the Chief Executives, Chief Finance Officers, Chief Operating Officers, etc). Having worked most of my professional life in those rarefied circles, speaking business objectives in language that a board understands has always been key to getting buy-in to the campaigns I was running. 

So, I greeted the VMM with open arms and a “hallelujah, about bloody time, too”.  Finally, a way to demonstrate just what impact a good PR campaign can have!

The emergence of a new paradigm in any academic and practitioner community should be a time for debate and discussion. I have been surprised, however, by the lack of enthusiasm about the VMM from the world of agency PR. Maybe that’s because clients don’t understand anything other than the old AVE metric. Or maybe the stranglehold of media relations means that clients still count the value of their PR retainer fees by the number of cuttings, web click throughs, likes, etc. Whatever the case, it is surprising to me just how long it is taking for the VMM to penetrate into use.

So, when the CIPR PRide Awards rolled around last week, I was delighted that one of my Masters student agency teams submitted an application on behalf of their client, Southampton Solent University, for a campaign called “Love Your Bins”- an unsexy topic that actually needed addressiing if community relations between the university and the student population were to be improved.

That their campaign would win a gold award for community relations was never (in my mind anyway) a doubt.  But what made me dance a little jig and strike a Usain Bolt pose was when the CIPR Wessex judges decided to award their campaign a gold prize for best use of measurement. And this award is based on a pool of every entry made to the prize committee, across 25 categories. So, my MA students were pitted against big agencies, and large inhouse departments, and yet managed to beat them all. Why? Because they used the VMM. 

Want to see the campaign and what the judges said? Take a look. Let’s hope that those agencies and clients that actually want to get results from their PR will start taking the VMM seriously. I am delighted that the CIPR is doing just that.

All Corporate communication is unethical

Ok, now that I have your attention, let me explain. If you are a PR student, it is likely that somewhere along the line you have been told about Grunig & Grunig’s Excellence Theory of PR, which suggests that PR practitioners should aspire to achieve “two-way symmetrical communication with stakeholders”.  And, in its later iterations, the Excellence Theory suggests that if corporate communication is not symmetric, then it is by definition unethical.  Symmetry, by the way, means “equally balanced”.

That idea has been bugging me for years -and now I’ve decided to call time on this idea.  Practitioners have to make decisions, set priorities, work with limited budgets, and even more limited attention spans of senior management. Everyone KNOWS that you focus your efforts on those stakeholders that matter. And, that even within a single stakeholder group, you are not “evenly balanced” in your communication. Not all media within the media stakeholder group are treated the same. Not every employee is communicated with on an equal basis often for legal reasons, as well as practical ones.

The other thing wrong with the theory is that it implies that stakeholders are equally interested in communicating with the company as the company is interested in communicating with them. And that is just plain lunacy. Few stakeholders care equally about the companies with whom they interact. Even Greenpeace targets its efforts on chocolate production to those manufacturers with the biggest production and customer base. If you are small and niche, you are off their radar. So, not all stakeholders care as much about you as you do about them, if you are a corporate communicator. In fact, far from being symmetric, it’s sometimes hard to get them to pay attention at all.

In my view the symmetric communication idea is a complete fallacy. No two people, let along stakeholder groups, have an identical or equally balanced investment in the conversation, even when it is two-way. So, let’s put this lame duck theory to bed. What matters is not “symmetry”, but rather” effectiveness”. So, repeat after me- “ethical communication is NOT about symmetry”….

The Blame Game

In class this week, I challenged my final year PR undergraduate students to a problem based learning exercise on alcohol abuse. Reading media cuttings about drunk college students, anti-social behaviour and domestic violence fuelled by alcohol, interspersed with adverts from supermarkets selling wine and beer at below cost price, the students were asked ‘who is to blame?’  Is it the act of drinking to excess? Or is it the actor, ie who is doing the drinking? Or is it the results, that is, the consequences of some of the drinkers’ actions that is the “real problem”?

In PR, it matters who is ‘to blame’…because based on your assessment of the problem, different solutions come to mind. If it is cheap alcohol, then raise the unit price to make access more difficult. If it is youth all of whom cannot be trusted to drink responsibly, then change the licensing laws and enforce the legal drinking age. If it is the results that come from the actions of a few miscreants, rather than the many, then enforce the law and ban those people from drinking (a bit like taking a drunk driver’s license away). We all know the consequences of too much drink, so surely it isn’t ignorance.

The exercise was enlightening, because it helped students appreciate that the PR professional’s job is all about defining the agenda, controlling the debate and managing the issue, so that their client (or their company, if in-house) can protect and promote their interests.  Language matters.

How the debate is defined in the media world influences the public policy agenda. So, every press release and media briefing needs to be seriously considered from that point of view. By your definition of the problem, you are proposing a solution. So, do it consciously, with forethought. Is that really what you think the solution of the problem is?

What was also interesting is helping students realise that the biggest cost to society  of alcohol abuse is not the drinking of young people, but rather the ballooning health costs of alcohol-related diseases, especially diabetes, which do not generally surface until people are in their fifties. So, maybe despite how the media loves to vilify “Freshers’ Week” drunkenness, the real problem is stopping the fifty year old women like me from reaching for that second (and third) glass of wine.

Corporate Communications vs PR

Ok, I am a snob….after thirty years of being a practitioner, I still cringe when people say “Oh, you are in PR”. Actually, I’m not. I’ve been a corporate communicator for all of my professional career. To me “PR” is all too often shorthand for “press relations” and that is (in my view) the bottom end of the food chain in my profession. Ask any poor intern about the “joys” of “selling in” a story to a reluctant journalist.  PR is all about “product push”, endless phone calls to publications in pursuit of those elusive column inches that your clients think are so important.  Ugh! I LOATHE PR, if that is what it means.  In fact, I’d rather hire journalists who can’t get jobs to write the press releases that will get the clients the coverage they want. Real communications professionals should be doing more meaningful work.

And I am not alone-  the sort of mental image that people outside the profession have of PR is not pretty. You know, “publicists”, “spin doctors”, “propagandists”. All the negatives wrapped up into one concept, dismissively called “PR”.  And that word is usually accompanied with an adjective “it’s just PR”- in other words, not real, smoke and mirrors, the “dark art” and other assorted negative phrases.

So, for years I have said that I do “corporate communications”-  the strategic stuff, the “big ticket” work, “crisis communicaitons”, “mnagement communications”, “issues maangement”, “public affairs”, ”reputation management”- in short, everything but PR.  There is a reason why the defnitions matter- because the language used has meanings for those who matter.

Corporate Communications is more professional than PR. If you are going to be working with top teams, the C Suite (Chief Executives, Chief Operating Officers, Chief Finance Offices, the CEOs, COOs, CFOs, etc) then the word “PR” is certain to relegate you to the backroom. “Corporate Communications” is something that tends to command more respect; it’s the way into the boardroom.  For me, that’s where I want to be.

Social media metrics re-visited

It’s happening again….The reason why I teach is to have an excuse to learn, and marking my students’ media communication projects has set me off on a steep learning curve.  Over the past week, I’ve learned more about social media analytics than I ever thought possible. Thanks to my students, I’ve learned about bounce, about stickiness, about curation  and about how to apply the new Valid Metrics Matrix to social media campaign evaluation.

But…interestingly, it is surprising that in all the social media stuff out there about social media that too few people talk about whether social media driven PR campaigns are actually changing behaviour in the real world.   And that links back to proving PR’s credentials in the boardroom, proving return on investment, demonstrating the strategic value of the latest gadget in the toy box.

So, I thought about whether any social media campaigns that I have been on the receiving end of have actually led me to part with real money.  And, to my surprise, the two that actually have produced that all important revenue generating moment came to me in an extremely old fashioned, non-trendy way- by email. 

So, how many of you have ever clicked through on an advert that sits alongside the Facebook page, or a sponsored link on Google, and even if you have, did you actually spend some money online as a result?   Shouldn’t PR be measured on its impact on the bottom line?  For more interesting insight on the subject, check out Craig Pearce’s excellent blog on the subject.

Flying the nest

Every spring, I watch the fledglings in my garden try to fly off and join the world of adults. Some make it, some don’t. That same feeling hits me at this time in May when I contemplate the future of my final year undergraduate students, most of whom are seriously exhausted after the mad dash of dissertation hand-in, major project deadlines and now their panic over the last hurdle- their exam on Monday.   What words of advice can I offer my fledglings?

First of all, don’t expect to do it all overnight. No one springs into perfect solo flight. There are going to be bumpy rides, crash landings and not a few ruffled feathers. Lots of occasions when you apply for jobs and don’t even get the courtesy of a reply, let alone an interview.  Don’t despair; everyone has their own flight path, and it rarely goes in a straight line.

Second- don’t leave the university nest only to try to climb back into another nest. Some students will go home for the summer and slip back into old habits. Squeezing back into your old childhood home can be tempting, but difficult, when parents have gotten used to not having you around.  I watch the baby birds mobbing their parents with beaks wide open, screaming “feed me!” and find the parent birds’ resentment builds, until eventually they turn nasty and chase the baby bird away. Tough love, but it seems to work for them.

Thirdly, now that I have the advantage of knowing alumni who graduated five years ago and have gone on to successful careers, I can say to this year’s crop of fledglings- relax, you’ll make it. I know you all well enough to have faith. Stay in touch with me and each other, so you can get the support you need to make this the most exciting time of your life. Take off and enjoy the ride!

Measurement- 2.0

The Social Media group at the CIPR have produced new Social Media Measurement Guidance, six months after the main exercise to give the Barcelona Principles shape. Was the extra time warranted? Was extra caution warranted before applying the “valid metrics matrix” to social media when other PR measurement was covered in October?

 Reading the document makes me wonder whether the wait was worth it, given that so much that they urge seems equally applicable to traditional PR, as well as that conducted in the social media environment.  The Guidance assumes that there is a difference, given that “social web participants produce, share, curate and publish as well as consume.”  Well, I would argue that good “old fashioned” PR creates engagement. Face-to-face and intermediated mechanisms have existed for decades; social media just makes it easier, quicker, cheaper. It’s a matter of degree, rather than uniqueness.

The sixth of the Barcelona Principles is that “Social media can and should be measured.” Well, duh, as my American friends would say.

I have been sceptical for at least a decade of PR that counts clicks, just as much as I deride AVEs and “opportunities to see”. It’s what people DO that counts, not what they read- on or off line. It is a case of the blindingly obvious that the most important purpose of PR is not awareness or perception, but rather action So, I concur with the new Guidance’s emphasis on the “metrics of engagement not just consumption, awareness or reach”- but that applies equally to PR using traditional media as well as social media.

I do think that the task group was a little simplistic in their criticism of the matrix when they worried that “too many of the example metrics in one cell were repeated in other cells”. That seems to my eye to be their poor understanding of what they should be measuring- and I quarrel with most of what they have populated the cells with. Why, for example, should they simply repeat across all of the matrix for PR Activity the number of outputs, as if implying that quantity was the important issue? I’ve always argued that it isn’t the number, it’s who and what is being said. More than a name check, this needs careful analysis of content and context, and that applies to social media as much as traditional PR.

I do applaud their desire to debunk the myth that “the more followers/friends the better.”  I have always argued that unless you are CocaCola or Macdonalds, PR is almost never a mass market numbers game. What matters is influencing the right stakeholder at the right time. That needs pinpoint targeting- and social media rarely delivers more than a very few stakeholder groups. “Fans and friends”, even if they are customers, are only one type of stakeholder group. As my students are wont to hear from me, customers are usually the least important stakeholder group. So, if you fill your PR reports to clients with the sort of charts like those above, whilst explaining that you are deploying a communication strategy that delivers “two way symmetric communication” just because it uses social media and gets some comments and feedback that way- well, this is just plain wrong. This conclusion may make me unpopular with the Facebook generation, but I argue that for most organisations the most important stakeholders are not online or engaging with social media.

So, I endorse the Working Party’s conclusion that “one metric never suffices. You will need a balanced portfolio of metrics.” Once again, duh…

Face-to-face

In today’s world we take for granted the fact that we are connected- via social media, the internet, e mail, mobile…and yet how often do we actually make a connection?  Last night I watched eleven PR practitioners come together with a room full of second and third year PR students, and the effect was extraordinary. The CIPR’s Wessex Branch has worked with Southampton Solent University for the past three years to run a Meet the Professionals night, using a speed-dating format to make sure that everyone gets a chance to meet and exchange ideas. It is noisy, fun, exciting- and exhausting for the practitioners, who get bombarded by every conceivable sort of question.  It’s also the best demonstration I know of the power of face-to-face communication.

One practitioner to a table of between two and four students means that everyone gets a chance to ask questions- and to hear the professional’s answers to other students’ questions, too. The effect is catalytic – one idea sparks another before spinning off at a tangent, and everyone gets the benefit. It’s a form of group chemistry that changes people’s ideas. One of the students at the end said in a rather dazed tone that she had started off at the first table thinking her future career would follow a particular path, and ended the night having changed her ideas at almost every table. That’s what the event is designed to do- open eyes to new and different ways to build a career in PR. We had practitioners from agencies and in-house departments, public and private sector, B2B and B2C.  I was also delighted to see two professionals who run their own agencies, who can help students realise that “freelance” is a great opportunity to have a career of your own design, as opposed to being at the mercy of someone else’s commercial objectives.

For the practitioners, it’s a quick immersion into youthful passions, and a chance to share their own career experiences with those just starting out. Our professionals last night ranged in age from their early twenties, in their first job, to old-timers with the battle scars and war stories to prove it. All came because they see the value in connecting with and giving back to the next generation. It was also great to see three people working in the same agency, MCC International- a B2B agency in Hampshire- all graduates from Southampton Solent University at some point over the past twenty years.  That’s inspiring to this student cohort, and a great demonstration of the benefits of networking.  

For the students it was a chance to network, explore different ideas, maybe find a contact that could be useful for a dissertation, a work-placement or even a potential employer. Business cards were handed over, notes taken and I have no doubt that there will be follow up.  How often does that happen on Facebook? There is something to be said about synchronous communication of the good old fashioned face-to-face variety.

Will you sleep walk through the revolution?

I just took a look at Facebook and was disappointed to see how many of my “friends” have been commenting on everything BUT what is going on in the Middle East. OK, so I know I care about this stuff; you can’t have three university degrees in international relations and NOT notice things like revolutions.  But, I am surprised at how few people in my network are taking the time to comment. At the very least, the issue of how Facebook and twitter are used in organising and reporting might have attracted some interest.  But, no- my wall is full of the usual bits and pieces of people going out, partying, tagging photos of each other, etc.  You wouldn’t know that the most extraordinary changes of the past thirty years are underway.

 One of the key ingredients of a “PR person” (in my humble opinion) is that they should be plugged into the world, caring about what is happening, seeing the big picture and being able to understand what trends mean. And what is happening now is …history being made. In the same way as it was when the Berlin Wall was falling, Nelson Mandela was walking free, the twin towers were collapsing on 9/11. Wake up! Stuff is happening that will change your lives and the world around you!

 I often talk about “super hero PR”- when communication makes a BIG change. What is going on in the Middle East just now is a case of ordinary people creating BIG change through communication. If you thought the political machine in the UK was hard to change, consider how difficult it is in dictatorships where dissident voices are silenced by secret police, torture and tanks.  Yet, communication has overturned the status-quo in not one, not two, but now three- and more are on the way. Wow- that is EXCITING!

 I realised the links between the news and life at an early stage- watching TV when I was 13 years old when Soviet tanks rolled into Prague, when Yasser Arafat addressed the UN, when Robert Kennedy was assassinated, when African national liberation wars competed with black power, feminism and Viet Nam for the headlines.  Maybe that makes me different?

 I can’t help it- consider this an official rant: if you are serious about communication, then get serious about how it is being used to change the world. Pay attention and think about what it means…..  I think that what is happening is SEISMIC- and will end up changing the world far more than 9/11 did. I also think it will not end up anywhere near where the American and Western pundits are talking about. We (in the West) see the Arab world through a prism of our own prejudices and cultural/political imperialism. All this stuff in the papers about “democratic change” simply does not get it. Disagree? Tell me why….

PR Toolbox- Measurement

The CIPR has announced the funeral of AVEs. I, for one, will not be weeping by the graveside. AVEs are not only the worst example of how to measure the impact of PR and communications, they are also responsible in my view for the denigration of our profession. I  have been arguing for decades that it is part of the reason why the profession is not taken seriously by senior management. 

When PR agency folk used to complain that they did not get access to the board room, I used to reply, ‘then start thinking like a baord director’. It’s about business objectives and bottom lines. It’s about real value for money and return on investment, and that is about changing perceptions so they change behaviour. That doesn’t involve a spurious calculation of media space being bought by advertising vs media coverage achieved through PR.  Those who know me well will have heard my favourite rant- media relations is the LEAST effective tool in the PR toolbox! 

So, I am now teaching the Valid Metrics Matrix, and seeing how it will work as a way of encouraging clients to stop thinking about the vanity of seeing their names in print, and start thinking about how to change behaviour through their PR. Because that is what we should be measuring.  The media is a means to an end, so measure the ends, not the means. If the CIPR is determined to make a difference here. then every one of the CIPR Excellence Award applications that include AVEs will be automatically disqualified, and returned to sender, marked as ‘offensive to the profession.’ Anyone else think differently, put up the business case, please.