Setting public relations objectives that are directly related to an organisation’s mission and operating or business plan is, so it seems, one of PR’s great challenges. It simply does not occur with any consistently applied methodology. But there are ways to create objectives – or KPIs – that are inherently and profoundly relevant to what an organisation is actually trying to achieve – let’s learn some ’secrets’…

Angela Sinickas is an internationally renowned public relations exponent and a passionate advocate for the setting of objectives – that have utility and are consistent in their application. Angela has been awarded 17 International Association of Business Communicators Gold Quills, teaches a graduate class on communication measurement and is widely published.

Angela Sinickas

Prior to her presenting a half-day workshop on Measuring ROI on communications (see below for free ticket if you are quick and have an insight) on 3 August for IABC NSW (sponsored by Ogilvy Public Relations Australia and St George Bank), Angela kindly answered a number of questions on this vexed issue.

A consistent KPI methodology

CP: Is there a straightforward methodology that can be applied to setting KPIs for public relations?

I think so. Start with a business goal.

Figure out which stakeholders need to change their behavior to better reach that goal. Research what knowledge and attitude messages will encourage the changed behavior, and which channels are most preferred for those messages.

Set targets for all of the above. Measure results through surveys and/or pilot/control groups.

Behaviour at the heart of PR KPI setting

CP: Considerable PR discussions and articles talk about PR KPIs being linked to organisational objectives, as well as them being “meaningful, reasonable and quantifiable.”^ To me, a lot of this discussion doesn’t provide anything of real substance and utility. What are your thoughts on the academic and business discussions on best practice meaningful KPI setting and the effective measurement of public relations activities?

I agree with you. They describe characteristics of good KPIs but not what you should set KPIs for. That’s why I always go back to my mantra above of knowledge, attitudes and behaviors—but created in reverse order. First figure out the behavior desired to make sure you’re working on the right knowledge and attitudes.

What are the primary notions to bear in mind when crafting KPIs for public relations strategies and programs?

Focus on measuring the desired outcomes first. Then measure only the activities (inputs) that your research identified as leading to those outcomes.

CP: Evaluation and KPIs tend to focus on the practical manifestations of a communication strategy (e.g. media relations, sponsorship). What are the implications of a relative lack of focus on measuring the strategy behind the tactics? How can we reduce the emphasis on the messenger being examined when, often, it should be the entity that crafted the message?

I don’t think we stop often enough to ask ourselves what we’re hoping to achieve, what will change, because of tactics like media relations and sponsorships. Until we clarify how we want to change the behaviors of people touched by our tactics, we won’t structure the events properly, or have the right key messages.

If we’re not doing the right things with our tactics to create intentional audience changes, it’s useless to measure the tactics themselves.

CP: You have written about how behaviour is the most important of the three potential dimensions resulting from communication-related activity (behaviour, perceptions, knowledge). Do you think this is forgotten in PR KPI setting sometimes and what are the fundamental reasons for prioritising behaviour over perceptions and knowledge?

If you don’t start with behavior, you’ll miss some of the most important key messages.

I often use an example from Malcolm Gladwell’s first book, The Tipping Point, where he describes a university health care clinic where the communicator wrote a brochure will all the key points the clinicians wanted on why students should get a tetanus vaccination:

• They even pretested the brochure, and the students scored very high on knowledge of all the key messages
• However, only 4% actually got a vaccination
• When they asked some of the original students why, with all this correct knowledge in mind, they didn’t get vaccinated, the most common answer was that they didn’t know where the clinic was.

Now that was a key message for the audience, though it never occurred to the internal client and communicator because they worked there. Once they added a map to the brochure, with no other changes, 28% of the students reading the brochure got vaccinated. If they had just asked five students what they needed to know and believe in order to get the vaccination, at least four of them would have said, “I need to know where to go.”

Many of our clients’ key messages are usually totally unnecessary, and they’re often far enough out of touch with their stakeholders that they don’t know what messages might be missing.

How to evolve KPIs on an ongoing basis

CP: Once KPIs are set for PR programs, what methodology should be applied to their ongoing evolution from, for instance, year to year? I think a factor especially relevant to the change in KPIs is that knowledge, perceptions and behaviour can, arguably, only change so much. How do you determine when the change that has been achieved is optimum and from that point it might be more relevant for the knowledge/perceptions/behaviour to be maintained, rather than changed? What are your thoughts on this?

It’s easy when you start from a low baseline to set targets, but as you say, the annual increases will become smaller and smaller as you reach more of your audience successfully. I’ve covered this in more detail in an article.

The “optimum point” would very well be different for different things you’re measuring. For example, if you’re trying to improve the knowledge of employees on something, your best possible percentage score is going to be seriously limited by the rate of annual employee turnover.

If only 75% of the people with your company in January when you start your campaign are still with the company by the next January, 75% would be your maximum possible target (though still not a realistic one). You need to work down from levels that reality limits.

Another way to look at the optimum, or highest realistic, target is to look at benchmarks.

I have clients where we index their success on metrics captured through surveys by determining that they would receive the maximum number of points for an item if they reached the previously highest score achieved by any company on that same metric. They’d be doing an average job if their score was near the norm (average) for that question.

For metrics based on things like online usage, we’ll look at the number of page views or visitors for the previous year. We look at the highest number of visitors/visits for any particular webcast or publication and set that as the top possible score that we could receive the following year as the average for the year.

What did you think about what Angela said? Do you set what you consider to be meaningful KPIs for your communication strategies and programs? What are the issues you have in setting these KPIs; what are your challenges? NB. A second post featuring Angela’s thoughts will appear in the near future on this blog.

Attention: a free ticket to Measuring ROI on communications, being presented on 3 August by IABC NSW, with the support of Ogilvy Australia and St George Bank, will be given to the person who provides the most interesting, value-adding comment to this post.*

About Angela Sinickas

Angela Sinickas, ABC, IABC Fellow, is president of Sinickas Communications, Inc., an international consulting firm that helps organizations plan and measure successful communication, including 23% of Forbes’ Global 100 largest corporations. She wrote the manual How to Measure Your Communication Programs and has earned 17 IABC Gold Quills. She also teaches an online graduate class on communication measurement for Northeastern University. Over 130 articles on communication planning and measurement can be read at www.sinicom.com

*The comment must be submitted by 9am Monday 2 August, Sydney, Australia time. I (CP) am the sole judge so don’t moan if you don’t like the arbitrary and subjective adjudication process! The winner must also be able to make the workshop, so unless you are willing to fly from Perth (Australia or Scotland), Southampton or Athens, don’t expect to win the ticket.

Tweet This Post

There are a number of contenders for the most eye-rolling, can-you-believe-it dumb marketing and/or PR moment of 2009: loser marketers, the GFC and social media amongst them . But, thankfully, there have been plenty of inspirational examples of best practice professional communication too. Most importantly, what have we learnt during the year and how will it make us better communicators?

This post explores these dimensions with the input and assistance of two of the globe’s most astute public relations minds, Craig Badings and Sean Williams, both of whom provide plenty of insights on their own estimable blogs.

The ugly communication canards

Starting with the eye rolling, it never ceases to amaze me what some wankers in the advertising/marketing world come up with and their justifications for it. Australian readers will be familiar with the Toyota debacle, where a sexist, incest-implying entry into an advertisement competition was repeatedly justified by marketers, then needed to be pulled out of the fire by public relations experts.

Arguably even more devastating due to the impact it is literally having on people’s lives, is how one of Australia’s largest banks, Westpac, raised home loan interest rates way in excess of our Reserve Bank’s guidelines (unlike some of their competitors). This was bad enough (avarice, completely contradictory to the Westpac’s supposed – and now obviously shot to pieces – CSR positioning) but it was made worse by an ill-judged video using banana smoothies as an analogy for the excessive interest rate hike…unbelievable.

Craig Badings found the GFC tiresome (hey, and who can blame him! It got me retrenched, so I know what he means). “The impact of the GFC on communication service companies has had a profound impact in many respects,” he says.

“I am nervous that some of these will become de rigueur moving forward. For example, some companies have become extremely process driven in their approach to comms. This is all well and good when used to measure outputs and impact on ROI but when it comes as the expense of innovation and creativity I start fearing for the relationship. These approaches, if taken too far, inevitably kill the passion.”

Sean Williams, on the other hand, took the other major elephant in the room over the past year to task. “Crap social media claptrap. There is a ruling class in social media consulting who regurgitates the same old, tired canard of gobbeldy-gook that makes social media out to be the reinvention of the structure of society itself, declaring the End of News Media and accusing anyone who disagrees of being stupid, corrupt or worse.”

Examples of best practice public relations

On a more positive note, Craig looked back with satisfaction on a campaign he had worked on with law firm Henry Davis York. This…“resulted in the government of New South Wales settling with a family whose home was situated on an old radioactive waste site.”

Sean pointed out an excellent campaign by The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, called ‘Drawing Board’. “They are my client for measurement, so I can’t take credit for the single best and simplest explanation of financial regulation I’ve ever seen [unintentional banking and video connection noted...!]. They’ve also done a follow up video on the consumer price index…”

Getting better (at communicating) all the time

There is nothing that we all can’t get better at, but Sean and I would love to win more new business for our consultancies and I am sure Craig empathises with this as well. I question whether really profound, organisation-changing work can be done from the consultancy position, as opposed to working in-house in a PR capacity, but there are certainly plenty of exceptions to this position.

Sean, like most of us, had a big social media learning and ‘doing’ time in 2009. “Twitter and blogging make up a huge part of my day/week,” he says. “And the amount of information (some good, some not) I’ve gleaned from reading others in our field has been great.”

Plenty of us would have the tools to get better at our jobs by reading Craig’s book, Brand Stand; seven steps to thought leadership, which was published this year, whilst professional communication blogs by the likes of Karalee Evans and Trevor Young make an ongoing contribution to professional PR learning.

Incorporating the perspectives of others into my work and approach is always one of the more interesting and enriching dimensions of a professional life. Of course, embracing the views of others is analogous to public relations so it’s hypocritical not to bring such a mindset to our work.

And for 2010?

“I think more and more executives and communication professionals are beginning to understand the true power of good thought leadership and, if done properly, it’s ability to impact sales,” postulates Craig. “The biggest battle, however, is getting some people to understand that the focus of thought leadership doesn’t have to be on the product or service and that it is perfectly OK to ‘give away’ or share information and insights.”

The ‘giving away’ of information is similar to social media best practice. But social media still remains a war zone, according to Craig. “Many of the large corporates are still battling with the concept of engaging online. Speak to Dell, Walmart, Kryptonite locks, Pizza Hut and a host of others to find out just how important it is, if only as an early warning device for issues and a way to help manage crises.”

Sean says, “2010 could well be the Year of Measurement – that means doing long-delayed internal comms research, reducing dependence on ‘more more more’ in media relations in favour of better targeting and generally looking critically at how communication affects the business.”

It was reinforced for me during 2009, and I’ll be applying this in 2010 and beyond, how important flexibility and believing in yourself is. I was retrenched during 2009, I started my blog, I was forced to start my own business and now juggle a permanent role, my own business and this demanding blog baby.

An upside out of this was meeting, networking and collaborating with a wide range of public relations professionals, many of whom provided me with a great deal of support, inspiration and professional education. It reinforced to me what a rewarding, worthwhile profession I work in.

 So tell me, what were the highs, lows and ‘learnings’ of 2009 for you – and what do you think the professional business communication world will bring in 2010?

Tweet This Post

Too many public relations folk focus, and rely, on their traditional bread and butter approach to public relations, such as media relations. Even worse, many of us do not think laterally enough about the range of weapons in our arsenal that we can use to achieve objectives.

Marketers are often much better at public relations professionals at getting these dimensions right and do not, to me, seem so precious about what is or is not a better communication mechanism or approach to use. This perception really crystallised for me a couple of years ago at a national Australian industry association public relations conference.

The organisers did what I thought was a really smart thing: they invited a bunch of experts from different marketing fields to speak to us: digital marketing, direct marketing, advertising, branding etc. Perfect, I thought. Something to broaden the mind and challenge public relations assumptions about what is the best way to achieve our objectives.

So what happened? The marketing sessions were virtually empty. The vast majority of conference attendees stuck to the tried and true and, to me, dead boring as I’d heard it many times before, presentations on topics like ‘how to best deal with a journalist’. The marketing sessions, meanwhile, were vibrant, even electrifying, in the information they presented and the rationales on which they based their approaches.

So, public relations advocate that I am, here are some thoughts on where I think PR people should take a leaf out of marketers’ books.

Business relevance

Too much public relations is activity without a driver. You won’t find much marketing that is not implemented without a very specific business-relevance. Marketing is a tighter, tougher and more disciplined game than public relations.

Marketers know where their activity is being directed and why. Public relations can be a rebel without a cause, crying out for funding and resources without being able to present a business case to support its request.

Evaluation

Marketers are great at crunching numbers and providing a transparent reason why a particular communication or stakeholder engagement approach should be taken. They get creative, then undertake research to determine if this is the best approach to take, both in the creation of products and services and the communication that is used to sell them. A similar mindset informs their brand-focused communication.

Measuring ROI is a critically important issue for them, whilst public relations is still agonising over how best to evaluate its effectiveness. This is despite market research experts like Adrian Goldsmith purporting that reputation can be evaluated and measured.

I also think (and maybe it’s because they have bigger budgets to play with, but they probably only got these budgets because they proved they came up with the goods) marketers make better use of market research than public relations practitioners.

Sure, they use it to test ideas/products/services and to measure their success, but they also use it to come up with target audience insights that help the business relevance of their activities and to stimulate and profitably direct creativity. And we are talking creativity which engages here.

Database and direct communication

One of my favourite areas. There is much to be said for 3^rd party endorsement (i.e. through media editorial placement and strategic alliances) and the credibility/brand enhancement it generates, but surely it is a no brainer that any half-decent holistic (really, a tautological application of the word in this context, but…) communication strategy will feature means of communicating with target audiences that are unmediated.

Unmediated communication allows an organisation to frame its communication in the precise terms that it wants its target audiences to hear:

• Customised to target audience needs, wants, culture and point of view
• No compromise in articulating the information an organisation wants its target audiences to hear, which might otherwise occur if there are the delicate sensibilities of the media, for instance, to be considered.

Having a database of target audiences and those that influence target audiences is a fundamental resource to enable this to occur. Tools that can then be used include hard copy and electronic newsletters, direct mail and even phone calls.

Brand vs sales

Marketers tend to be much clearer when defining whether their communication is brand/reputation or product/sales related. Public relations is much more nebulous in this regard, flaky even. This is related to the points above about business relevance and evaluation. I think this is something of a forgotten topic in the public relations dialectic. It doesn’t rate highly in my recall of academic discussions on the issue.

KPIs/objectives

You’re flat out finding a public relations practitioner that understands that objectives are KPIs (i.e. set, measure, go!), let alone one that is willing to actually set meaningful, business-relevant ones before implementing communication strategies/activities.

[Here’s a scoop (irony dripping...): some PR practitioners will set objectives retrospectively when entering industry awards to do two things – make their work look more effective than it may have been and to make it seem that evaluation was an important part of their thinking...when, plainly, it wasn’t.]

Marketing lives and dies by the KPIs it sets. Whether it’s a clear linkage to sales generation, brand awareness, hits to websites etc. It’s one likely reason why you’re more likely to find a marketer around the C-suite decision making table than a public relations professional.

Also, and this is an area where I would personally like to get a lot better, public relations really struggles with determining what are meaningful objectives to set in the first place. It’s not just stories placed in the media, it’s not just the amount of speaking engagements that are procured for the CEO – it must be more related to genuine business outcomes. Perhaps the topic for deeper discussion on another day.

Integrated communication

Dare I posit that marketers are better multi-taskers than PR folk? Well, considering marketers often design and implement integrated marketing campaigns that might use an array of tools simultaneously in concert with each other, it is tempting to think so. Examples of tactics include:

• Advertising (through multiple mediums)
• Competitions (as above)
• Media relations
• Digital communication (social media, website, e-newsletter)
• Database and direct communication
• Point of sale
• Sponsorship.

Of more import is that public relations professionals can learn a lot from the way marketers employ a diversity of tools to achieve a singular outcome.

Upshot?

Look at all of the above and you will get some idea of why marketers have more access to the C-suite than public relations practitioners. Marketers make sure their work is business relevant and they can provide proof into the effectiveness of their work. PR professionals would be wise to take a similar approach more often than they currently do.

Tweet This Post

Without undertaking market research, the strategic communication professional is leaving stones unturned, not devising the most informed and therefore best possible communication strategy and potentially encouraging organisations to expend valuable resources in a counter-productive manner that will not deliver best possible ROI.

Quelle horreur!

To help us understand why market research is a no-brainer for best practice communication, leading Australian market researcher Adrian Goldsmith* comments in this post on issues such as the ethical dimension of market research, ROI and the relevance of market research to reputation evaluation. In the previous post, Adrian provided insights into the general salience of market research and its value to organisations.

As in any article on strategic communication, it’s important that we first focus on an issue of importance to all of us: death. Adrian explains…

“I recall one study that was unusual from the outset and provided some profoundly interesting results. It involved a mausoleum that was part of a cemetery owned by one of the local councils in Melbourne. They wanted to know whether they should use some land in the cemetery to create burial plots or build a bigger mausoleum – essential to determine whether the current burial practices of mausoleum users would continue into the future with sufficient consistency to warrant the investment.

So the key was to speak with first, second and third generation southern-born Italians to determine their likely behaviour. However, this needed to be done sensitively given a high degree of superstition relating to speaking about death and burial practices.

The research needed to talk in general terms about the practice, but also obtain a robust assessment of behaviour. The approach was carefully planned, beautifully executed and provide a sound basis for decision-making. The end result – a larger mausoleum, well patronised and financially successful too!”

Are there any areas in particular where you think it’s likely to be of no use to undertake market research?

“Research is only of value when you are able to act on the findings – make a change, keep doing the same thing, vary, evolve, respond. If you have no intention of responding to the feedback or insight you’re wasting your money and the time of those involved at every level.

There are also some situations where the answer cannot be obtained by asking the punters – they are ill-equipped or unable to provide sufficient information or insight to enable the right decision to be reached. In these situations, it is probably better to run an internal workshop with the key people from within the organisation involved than go to the wider audience.

Again, in recent times, I’ve spent a great deal of time discussing when research is and isn’t a worthwhile investment – it’s an important discussion to have given the increasing cost and complexity of doing good research.”

Some communicators and marketers tend to go more for the gut-feel approach rather than a rigourous market research approach. Is there a time when gut feel alone is the right way to go?

“Gut-feel really only works when the decision is so obvious and so grounded in past experience that there is no risk in the decision – that the decision essentially makes itself!

Even so, I’ve had situations where the speed of the decision required a pure gut approach from the client. In these situations, I counselled the client to ask around to get a consensus of opinion from as wide a range of people as possible – to essential validate by convenient methods in lieu of formal research.”

ROI in marketing, but probably more so in the arena in diverse but related fields of public relations/reputation management/brand equity is critically important, yet quite problematic. What value does market research offer in this sphere? Can reputation and the quality of relationships with key stakeholders (e.g. industry peers, government, and consumer ‘influencers’) be accurately measured and can a business value be attached?

“Without doubt, reputation and relationship quality can be measured in absolute terms and in the context of return on investment.

Identifying what the underlying constructs of a relationship are and their differential role in delivering connection and relationship strength / quality is an acknowledged and powerful extension of simple customer satisfaction measurement. It takes the concept of measurement to another level by identifying the most profitable activities to focus on and the payoff from doing so.

A defined value can be put to their current behaviour and the impact of improvements or changes in the behaviour coming about through better relationships. This highlights the best use of (typically) scarce resources.”

Do you ever counsel caution to communicators when using the information/insights that market research has identified? Can you explain?

“Recently, far more of my time was spent discussing the merits of research, its potential to assist (in most situations, but not all), when it is inappropriate to use research and how best to optimise the investment (not cost) that is required to conduct and deliver great research.

Even so, it is particularly important that communicators make appropriate use of information and insights when preparing materials and approaches for the publics they are seeking to engage. From simple presentation of the most appropriate information to appropriate interpretation of results, to translation of insights into messages – a great deal of the modern researcher’s time is spent ‘bedding down’ the findings to ensure they hit the mark.

Beyond being a requirement of the industry’s Code of Professional Behaviour, successful use of research in the public domain encourages others to make use of research in the future.”

Have you ever had concerns that your market research findings have been used for less than ethical purposes or in a less than ethical way?

“As a research professional, you are bound by the industry’s Code of Professional Behaviour which has provisions relating to the use of research findings in the public domain. Put simply, we have a responsibility to review and sign-off on any research findings used in press releases or other public communications.

 If you suspect the potential for misuse, you are bound to raise it with the client beforehand and put in place processes to prevent it from happening.  If it comes to light afterwards that a client has misused the research two things need to happen.

The first is to communicate with the client that what they have done is contrary to the industry code and that they should not use the information that way (and seek to correct any misconception created.

The second is for the researcher to communicate with the industry body that they were unaware of the client’s actions until after they occurred.

However, we have a clear responsibility to ensure that findings are not inappropriately used within or outside client organisations (for example presenting only findings that support a position when there are clear opposing findings that are relevant to the decision or misrepresenting findings to deliberately mislead). To this end, we are often consulted in the presentation of findings, the use of research and the decisions that are to be made to ensure the client is reading it right.

Typical practices in this domain include sending files in PDF format so they can’t be tampered with, insisting on the right to review materials and just generally ‘watching over’ the client as they take the research back into the organisation.”

What have you found to be the essential differences, if any, between when marketers and public relations/strategic communication professionals utilise market research?

“In the past there has been a wide chasm between the two types of professional – exacerbated by a lack of understanding and a lack of willingness to understand each other’s perspectives and domains.

However, with the advent of closer relationships between researchers and communications professionals (brought about largely by client demands and expectations) and an aggregation of many research agencies into communications businesses, it would seem the chasm is closing and mutual understanding and respect are flowing naturally.

It’s exciting to be able to do your thing, be respected for it and to enable others to take your work and do their bit to it / with it to achieve the wider aim. This endorses the research process, the communications strategy process and the client’s faith in the professionals – all good outcomes.”

Do you think market research benefits the health of society as well as help achieve positive business outcomes? How so?

“Without doubt, the practice of market and social research delivers enormous benefit to society. Market research helps:

• save money on product / service development
• ensure the products / services customers need are developed and launched
• provide vital feedback about products / services to enable their improvement / enhancement
• ensure effective deployment of scarce resources in the public sector.

These all provide a sound return on the relatively small investment that it takes to undertake high quality research.”

What do you think about Adrian’s thoughts? What ethical issues with the generating and utilisation of market research have you encountered? Where (if ever) does ‘gut-feel’ rule over scientifically gathered market research? Have you ever hesitated over using, or not used, perfectly reasonable market research findings – why?

[The third and final instalment of the interview with Adrian will have a strong social media-relevant dimension.]

[Adrian Goldsmith has worked in the market and social research arena for nearly 20 years – four years with AGB McNair and nearly 16 years with Quantum Market Research as a principal, director and part-owner for most of this time. His primary role was in the planning and conduct of market and social research for a wide range of public and private sector clients across Australia. He spent much of his time undertaking a diverse array of studies and providing strategic advice to organisations as varied as state and federal government departments and agencies, leading financial services organisation and major events organisers. For reasons of confidentiality, the names of the organisations for which he has worked cannot be revealed. He departed Quantum in July 2009 to pursue new and different interests.

He has developed research expertise in a number of areas including reading public opinion, identifying the nature and extent of opportunities, clarifying the impact and effectiveness of communications, measuring client / stakeholder satisfaction and providing wise counsel to a vast array of organisations. He has spent the majority of his time providing timely, robust and reliable information on which organisations can make high quality decisions.]

Tweet This Post

Adrian Goldsmith

Market research is one of the most fundamental and important aspects of public relations (which is, of course, strategic communication when practiced at its optimum level) and marketing. Without undertaking scientifically rigourous market research, it is not possible to precisely know target audience/stakeholder:

• knowledge
• perceptions
• behaviour
• issues of concern
• influences on their knowledge, perceptions, behaviour
• communication modes that they utilise and/or that contribute to influencing them.

Market research provides communication professionals with this valuable information. The best market researchers and communication professionals then take this a step further: they evaluate the information. It is then used for purposes such as shaping communication, prompting organisational change and the refinement of products and services.

The importance of market research prompted me to ask one of Australia’s leading and most experienced market researchers, Adrian Goldsmith*, to answer some questions on market research and its utility and relevance for public relations and marketing professionals.

I admit complete bias in extolling the virtues of Adrian’s work. He has provided me with valuable advice and countless insights, often purely out of generosity (rather than cash!), especially during my tenure managing communication for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. (NB. This interview will run over the course of three posts.)

I started by asking Adrian what is the value of market research for a strategic communication professional?

“The true value of market and social research for strategic communication professional is the power that comes with KNOWING the current state of mind of the audience of interest on the issues of interest. By knowing, strategies can be developed, refined, implemented and measured with confidence and communication activities made more effective as a result.

Without such knowledge, the communications professional is flying blind and working off an unsound basis – the risk being that they misread the audience or the issue and present the wrong messages in the wrong way and end up scratching their heads in consternation.”

What are the key fundamental aspects of market research that a strategic communicator should bear in mind?

“There are a number of key aspects to bear in mind:

• What is the research to be used for?
• Who will see the research and to what end? (For example, will it be presented in public or just internally?  Is the research being used to support a business case or for simple reassurance /validation of a decision already made?)
• How important is it to have hard numbers versus feelings / indications?
• What outcome are you seeking from the research process / use?
• Are you prepared to listen to and act on the findings?

The answers to these questions will help to determine what, if any, research should be done and what types of techniques are likely to provide the best avenue for doing so.  If the research will be used in a very public way, for example, as the foundation of a major public release it needs to be highly defensible, robust and virtually bullet-proof.  If it will be seen at board level to assist in decision-making, it needs to be able to stand on its own and paint the right picture”

What communication successes have come about that, in your view, would not have occurred without the insights market research has provided?

“Two examples spring to mind – one involving a major sporting event, the other a major health outbreak.

For the sporting event, there were so many parties / players involved in the event that a coordinated, consistent and coherent approach to communications was essential. Underpinning every element of the preparation and staging of the event was a multi-faceted, ongoing and highly strategic research program consisting of qualitative, quantitative and tracking research activities.

Without a steady stream of information and insights, the event would not have been proclaimed ‘the best ever’, nor would the public have embraced and engaged with the event as powerfully as it did.

The second example required an incredibly quick response to an urgent worldwide outbreak.

Put simply, the client needed to know what was in the minds of the general public to enable concise and swift response through communications. Quick-fire research, coupled with overnight telephone hook-ups and heavy involvement of the researcher in planning the communications, meant the client could step confidently before the cameras and microphones and speak to its members and the wider public on safe ground.

Central to the success of this activity was the reassurance to the industry players that the peak body ‘had things under control’.”

My perception is that the rigour of market research provides a scientifically-founded basis on which to make marketing communication and organisation-stakeholder relationship decisions that, otherwise, are pure guesswork.

“Whilst I understand the pressure on decision-makers to make decisions, often without the luxury of time to think too long or undertake the necessary research, I continue to be amazed that organisations will happily spend hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars, making a formulation change, introducing a new process or launching a new product or service. Yet they baulk at spending the necessary amounts making sure of the decisions that support the move are sound.

An investment of a little as $10,000 for a $500,000 decision will pay itself back very quickly and will provide the reassurance to financiers to spend the larger amount with confidence.

Consider the alternative – burning half a million because your gut told you it was the right way to go! It takes a lot of guts (and perhaps balls) to be able to do it without research.”

What are the great myths/assumptions of market research that you have most frequently found yourself having to dispel over the years?

“The most prominent myths relate to the ease / simplicity of doing research to produce outcomes. Research continues to become harder and harder as audiences fragment, needs change and the demands of clients snowball. And the expectation is that it will cost the same or even less to repeat a study a year later!

Quite simply, the true value of research is not viewed by most in terms of ‘opportunity cost’, rather than in ‘pure cost’ terms. And when it comes to a cost perspective, lowest cost rarely means best value or most beneficial outcome when research is concerned.”

What is the best advice you have ever given that wasn’t taken?

“One of the best pieces of advice I gave involved a managing director who chose not to listen to or believe the findings of a customer satisfaction study. Despite clearly suggesting that a repeat of the study would yield results within a few percentage points above or below those originally obtained, he wanted the results ‘validated’ by another study for an additional $30,000. So I obliged, went back two weeks later and presented results that were three percentage points lower than the first lot…and I presented the results with an almost imperceptible smile.

A second example involved a recommendation to a certain political party that a certain element in a communications strategy be tested, despite the desire to ‘keep the powder dry’ for the campaign. The element wasn’t tested and with 24 hours of being launched, had provided significant negative public comment, news coverage and backlash – all of which may have been avoided or better managed if the element had been tested.”

What do you think about Adrian’s thoughts? Is undertaking market research a worthwhile investment? What is holding professional communicators back from undertaking it more frequently? In your experience, is the cheap and easy (e.g. SurveyMonkey) methodology just as useful as paying the big(ger) bucks to professional market researchers?

[In the next instalment of the interview with Adrian, he will discuss issues such as the ethical dimension of market research, ROI and the relevance of market research to reputation evaluation. The third and final instalment will have a strong social media-relevant dimension.]

[*Adrian Goldsmith has worked in the market and social research arena for nearly 20 years – four years with AGB McNair and nearly 16 years with Quantum Market Research as a principal, director and part-owner for most of this time. His primary role was in the planning and conduct of market and social research for a wide range of public and private sector clients across Australia. He spent much of his time undertaking a diverse array of studies and providing strategic advice to organisations as varied as state and federal government departments and agencies, leading financial services organisation and major events organisers. For reasons of confidentiality, the names of the organisations for which he has worked cannot be revealed. He departed Quantum in July 2009 to pursue new and different interests.

He has developed research expertise in a number of areas including reading public opinion, identifying the nature and extent of opportunities, clarifying the impact and effectiveness of communications, measuring client / stakeholder satisfaction and providing wise counsel to a vast array of organisations. He has spent the majority of his time providing timely, robust and reliable information on which organisations can make high quality decisions]

Tweet This Post

As the central strategic tenet of public relations is to enhance the quality of relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders, evaluation is a critical and fundamental element of the profession’s practice.

Without evaluation – and its tactical sibling measurement – public relations, like any business discipline, can simply not know:

• the direction in which in which it should travel
• the opportunities or impediments it faces in its journey
• benchmarks against which the effectiveness of its strategies, tactics and practice can be measured against.

Without serious, scientifically rigorous measurement and evaluation, public relations will find it difficult to prove its worth to an organisation.

Information that measurement and evaluation generates:

• provides information that allows practitioners to be creative in their strategic formulation
• can prove assumptions being made about target audiences are well founded or, conversely, disprove assumptions, thereby saving time, money and practitioners’ credibility.

Undertaking measurement and evaluation, then, surely helps to enhance public relations professionals’ personal satisfaction in their role and career.

Some key points to remember about measurement and evaluation follow.

Why do it?

It is critical to know why an evaluation program is being undertaken before instigating it. The evaluation might be to determine:

• what are the most effective communication mechanisms to reach target audiences
• what are the issues or topics that are of most concern to target audiences
• what is the current status of target audiences’ knowledge, perceptions and behaviour in regard to relevant issues and/or the organisation
• who or what currently influences the knowledge, perceptions and behaviour of target audiences in relevant areas and/or what has influenced any changes in their knowledge, perceptions and behaviour since last evaluated.

A deeper level of evaluation comes with thorough analysis of the data that is generated through the measurement/research process. This includes exploring the ramifications of the findings and looking for trends or emerging issues that future communication needs to incorporate to remain effective or become more effective.

Rationality vs. creativity

The generation of cold, hard data through the measurement process is not antithetical to creativity.

 Creativity is one of public relations’ greatest strengths. This manifests itself through lateral thinking that is used in strategy and tactical formulation.

 Data that is made apparent through measurement will provide a depth of information that simply allows professionals to be creative in a manner that is likely to have more impact. The data should inspire, not constrain.

 Cost

Measurement does not need to cost a lot. Even a cheap/free online mechanism or dissemination/collection of feedback forms at an event/speaking engagement can provide insights as well as useful quantitative benchmarking information.

 Qual vs. quant

There is seemingly a much stronger focus on the utility of qualitative research these days than there was five years ago. Quantitative research is still incredibly valuable, and the two work best hand in hand, but intelligent application of qual research can:

• Generate profound insights through exploration and interaction with the interviewee(s)
• Be undertaken by non-professional (but still intelligent) public relations professionals, thus potentially saving on organisational resources.

 Who to evaluate

In most cases, it will be the relevant primary target audiences of an organisation that should be researched. They are the ones that will probably be impacting most on an organisation’s operations and/or reputation.

 It may just be, however, that researching key influencers on target audiences, instead of the target audiences themselves, makes more sense. This may be:

• for cost reasons
• due to the nature of the communication campaign the research is relevant to
• as it is known, obvious and accepted what the target audience factors are, so it makes more sense to get greater insights into those who most influence target audiences.

 The purse strings

Getting the budget required to do extensive evaluation (or market research, to use its prosaic name) is often difficult. All sorts of justifications can be needed.

• Without it, communication strategy is being undertaken in a less than fully educated, professional manner, which may compromise its effectiveness and impact negatively on the organisation’s reputation
• Money and other resources invested in communication cannot be allocated as effectively and prudently as possible without evaluation-driven target audience insights
• Identifying key issues/concerns of the ‘dominant coalition’ (those who will decide or significantly influence whether funds are allocated to market research) in regard to target audience behaviours, then ensuring the research covers those issues, is a smart move to get budget sign off.

Tweet This Post

This post continues the discussion on what public relations entails. It discusses the strategic dimensions of PR in greater detail than Part 1. So, THE SHOCKING TRUTH OF PR is uncovered!

 Market research

PR professionals identify what the needs and wants of stakeholders are through mechanisms such as market research. They then investigate how issues uncovered by market research and other forms of stakeholder interaction impact on and have the potential to impact on an organisation.

 The excellent PR professional will then, most likely in collaboration with other senior organisational employees, conceptualise what the organisation can do to resolve stakeholder issues. This includes by changing the way the organisation operates and how it communicates, or relates, to its stakeholders.

 Another part of this is the dimension of what the organisation can do to enlighten its stakeholders if the organisation has determined that, really, it is quite happy with the way it is operating.

 Issues and crisis management

Issues management is, at its very strategic core, about organisations operating more in line with stakeholder expectations, as well as how it communicates with stakeholders on an ongoing basis. (Issues management should not be a ‘one-off’. It should be applied on a day-to-day basis as a core part of an organisation’s operations).

 The process can also be applied on a one-off basis. In this case, a potential issue or, worse, impending crisis, has been identified and then strategies are put in place to minimise organisational reputational damage. This may mean the organisation stopping or altering the activity/behaviour that was leading to the issue/crisis, or it may mean that communication strategies are put in place to mitigate the potentially negative reputational impact.

 Crisis management is when the s^#* has actually hit the fan and the communication professional has been brought in to minimise the reputational damage and to maintain, as much as possible, the quality of relationships the organisation has with its stakeholders.

 Corporate social responsibility

 At its core, public relations and CSR do pretty much the same thing: motivate organisations to operate more in line with community/stakeholder expectations. PR professionals, then, are ideally placed not just to communicate about an organisation’s CSR, but to help put in place and direct organisational behaviour that truly makes a positive difference to the local and global communities in which it operates.

 Change management and employee communication

As noted, public relations is very much about evolving the behaviour of an organisation. This requires change and it certainly involves directing communication to all levels of an organisation. It is no cliché to say that employees of a brand are its greatest potential brand advocates. Without their support the brand is doomed.

 Strategy

Finally, of course, when really this is first activity (but I have put it here just to be perverse), the overarching strategic activity of the public relations leader is devising a communication strategy for an organisation and managing its implementation. This includes most aspects of an organisation’s positioning and branding.

 Don’t let marketers fool you into believing they should be running the P&B show. They don’t have their eye on the big picture. Relationships are there for them to exploit to make money for an organisation. Reputation is a commodity to marketers, not the critically important licence to operate/exist that it is for public relations professionals.

 Some of the higher level communication that the PR professional also facilitates is government, NGO, regulator and industry association relationship management.

 Some of the basic strategic principles that are often applied in a public relations strategy include:

• Forming strategic alliances with complementary organisations. This enhances ‘client’ organisation credibility, enhances the reach of communication by using the alliances’ communication mechanisms and can lead to greater ROI
• 3^rd party credibility – associating an organisation with credible stakeholders who will speak positively on the ‘client’ organisation’s behalf
• Utilising direct, unmediated communication with stakeholders, balanced against the benefits that mediated communication can have through media or non-organisational spokespeople. Non-mediated communication can be controlled more effectively but its reach may not be as large or credible as mediated (e.g. media) communication
• Thought leadership (i.e. round tables, white papers, op-eds for media placement).

 Conclusion

Obviously I have focused more on the strategic characteristics of public relations and how its application benefits both business and society. Equally, however, it can be used as a manipulative methodology and one very much focused on making organisations money at the expense of quality relationships and positive organisational reputation. That is the commercial reality, as much as it undersells the strategic potential of the discipline. And as much as it disappoints me.

 Still, at least public relations professionals know that our discipline can serve a cause much more significant than purely a mercenary one. I believe that each of us has an opportunity to make a difference by always striving to play the higher, or the bigger, game. Think global, act local. Or focus on the circle of influence.

 Whatever the aphorism, we can make a difference. As human beings and as business professionals. Let’s not forget that.

[For those on LinkedIn and in the Innovative, Marketing, Sales...etc  group, a discussion on this post can also be found here.]

Tweet This Post

I have been shocked recently (well, not really, but definitely bitterly disappointed) by the lack of understanding of what constitutes public relations. This includes how business-relevant and business-beneficial the discipline is, as well as how much it can benefit society.

The biggest mistake people make is thinking that public relations is a synonym for media relations. In a business environment of this maturity, it simply defies belief that otherwise intelligent people can possess this understanding.

But, believe it or not, and I am talking about public relations professionals as well as marketing professionals here, both of whom should know better , this seems to be the case. I base this perception on interaction with communication professionals as well as responses I have seen to posts on various blogs in recent times.

The biggest sinners are public relations professionals themselves:

• They frequently – and I am taking senior leaders as well as the discipline’s foot soldiers – use the ‘PR’ terminology to specifically describe media relations. I have heard it occur time and time again. For as long as this nomenclature is used to describe media relations then other PR professionals, marketers, the broader business community, the media and the whole ‘great unwashed’ general community will continue to subscribe to the fallacy that PR=media relations
• As implied above, the public relations industry itself has done a pretty average of promoting its business-relevant, strategic relationship management and society-benefiting capabilities.

In a nutshell, public relations is about creating, enhancing and/or maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders. When operating at its optimum level it is less about control than facilitating dialogue and understanding.

This leads to change, both in organisational behaviour and communication and organisational stakeholder behaviour and communication.

This post summarises some of the strategic and tactical dimensions of public relations that are commonly applied in a functional, utilitarian manner to help organisations (and their stakeholders). More detail is in this post’s ‘partner’.

Market research

• Clarifying what the research is being undertaken for
• Developing insights based on the findings
• Using the insights to shape communication strategy.

Issues and crisis management

• Issues management is about influencing an organisation to operating more in line with stakeholder expectations, as well as how it communicates with stakeholders on an ongoing basis
• Crisis management is when the s^#* has actually hit the fan and the communication professional has been brought in to minimise the reputational damage and to maintain, as much as possible, the quality of relationships the organisation has with its stakeholders.

Corporate social responsibility

• At its core, public relations and CSR do pretty much the same thing: motivate organisations to operate more in line with community/stakeholder expectations
• The PR professional is ideally placed, then, to play a large role in organisational CSR policy/culture-making, implementation and, of course, communication.

Change management and employee communication

• Public relations facilitates change, including both internal and external stakeholders
• Employees of a brand are its greatest potential brand advocates. Without their support the brand is doomed.

Strategy

Finally, of course, when really this is first activity (but I have put it here just to be perverse), the overarching strategic activity of the public relations leader is devising a communication strategy for an organisation and managing its implementation. This includes most aspects of an organisation’s positioning and branding.

Public relations’ tactical activities

There are a range of activities that fall under the more practical, day-to-day side of public relations activities. Some of these include:

• Media relations – big-reach metro but also B2B and special interest (e.g. music media), which is much more targeted
• Social media (very much a PR-centric activity because it is intrinsically a dialogic and relationship-building mechanism – two characteristics at the heart of strategically applied public relations)
• Website – primarily content, but also strategic architecture advice
• Events and launches
• Publication production (anything from annual reports to brochures)
• Database management and direct communication mechanisms like newsletters, e-newsletters
• Community consultation (think engineering projects, nuclear waste sites next to your local PCYC etc)
• Sponsorship
• School education programs
• Speaking engagements (at business/industry conferences); putting together speeches, presentations, pitching to the event organisers.

More

See Part 2 of this post for a more in-depth discussion of the strategic dimensions of public relations and a conclusion.

Tweet This Post