Convincing the CEO of the role that PR and communication plays in establishing and maintaining a good corporate reputation is a challenge most Australian PR Directors and Managers will be familiar with.

That’s why I thought I would bring to your attention a new Corporate Reputation Management tool that I’ve just come across.

It’s not unique – there are other similar tools around to help PR and communications professionals who want to be able to quantify the importance of corporate reputation and the role that PR and communication plays in creating and maintaining this.

However, I thought it might provide some more ammunition for those internal public relations and communications professionals out there struggling with the perennial challenge of how to convince their superiors of the value of pursuing deliberate corporate reputation strategies and tactics.

The new tool is provided by consulting firm APCO Worldwide (which ironically is represented most places in the world apart from Australia!).

Unfortunately the bottom-line is that the tool is unlikely to be able to be of practical use of local internal Australian PR professionals. However, the model and methodology they use will be a useful starting point for anyone wanting to re-open the debate within their organisation. Or anyone just beginning to grapple with the challenge!

In introducing this new tool Bryan Dumont, president of APCO Insight, gives a good reminder as to why reputation management should be a key priority for Australian PR Directors and Managers, especially at our larger organisations.

“Marketers have long understood the value and importance of building the brand equity of products and services, but brand equity only drives outcomes among one stakeholder audience – consumers,” says Dumont.

“Reputation equity drives outcomes across all audiences, and as companies confront challenges that affect public confidence and trust and the ability to remain competitive in the marketplace, business leaders are looking for ways to influence not just consumer behavior but the expectations and perceptions of a variety of important stakeholder groups.”

APCO’s Return on Reputation Indicator analyses reputation across all key stakeholder groups, including consumers, community activists, policy-makers, investors and employees. The tool uncovers those drivers that are assets to a reputation as well as the opportunities that can improve a reputation most significantly.

If you happen to be in the retail sector, there’s even better news. That’s because APCO has produced a sample survey of the retail sector which shows which levers to pull to build a better corporate reputation.  Even if you are not in retail it’s worth a read.

I stress that the APCO material is largely of theoretical interest to those of us ‘down-under’. It is also a very outcomes-based tool. But just reading their approach should get those of you interested in corporate reputation management enthused about having another crack at it. Especially as it’s the beginning of a new financial year.

If the APCO approach does whet your appetite you may also get some value from viewing a series of articles on reputation management I’ve written over the years at my sister website – PR Influences.

They not only explain processes and benefits from using PR and communication strategies to achieve strong corporate reputation; there are also some tips on how to sell corporate reputation to the CEO.

What these stress is that reputation management is a process, which like most other PR and communications activities requires a deliberate and sustained approach.

If you are new to the topic the article – ‘Reputation Management- an Overview’ is probably a good starting point.

Related posts:

1. Rudd’s demise; the implications for Australian corporate PR and communications
2. PR and Crisis Management: Reduce the risk by planning and training
3. Sydney forum brings new insights into the role of PR within professional services firms

Here we go again. The old hoary topic of AVE’s (advertising value equivalents) as a way of measuring the value of editorial media coverage seems to be getting another airing within the Australian PR industry. Surely there are not many PR Manager’s around who subscribe to this approach!

To be fair it’s not a debate that has been started by PR professionals. In fact it has been sparked by a new service launched by Media Monitors, which in its announcement claims the tool will “provide the region’s most comprehensive quantitative analysis tool for editorial content across all media types”.

It calls it “a measurement methodology that incorporates data on page impressions, unique visitors, content style, advertising rates, size, language scaling and placement to provide instantly comparable advertising space rates (ASR) across internet monitoring content.”

The announcement has led to an encouraging debate on Mumbrella, the media and marketing portal. Encouraging in that the majority view seems to be strongly against the whole initiative!

On Mumbrella Brendan Swale, Product Director at Media Monitors, rushes out in defence to say “that’s not what we really mean”. As he appears to backtrack at great speed he even goes so far as to say “Media Monitors does not believe that ASRs or AVEs are in any way a measurement of the value of public relations or communications, nor do they inform future strategy, which is what good outcome based measurement provides (which Media Monitors also provides)”. 

It must be the time of the year for the reincarnation of discredited concepts. I was in New Zealand recently and I was told that the PR subsidiary of an ad agency had made a presentation arguing for the use of AVE’s. I’m told they were pretty much howled down by the PR pros in the room. Good on them.

This is a topic I’ve written on for a long time.  I see that in PR Influences I wrote as long ago as 2001 about how the PRIA had joined other PR organisations around the world in rejecting AVE’s as a legitimate form of measuring the value of editorial coverage in media.

Back in March when I blogged on a US PR measurement survey I used the opportunity to canvass the whole topic again so I won’t go over it again.

If you are interested in the topic of PR and editorial measurement I’ve written more than a dozen articles previous articles on, and around, this topic.

The PRIA has even produced a White Paper  – Advertising Values to Measure PR – Why They Are Invalid.

I am sure that the debate on Mumbrella is just warming up. Certainly it’s worth taking a look at what’s being said, and especially the comments of Brendan Swale from Media Monitors.

As is the norm these days Media Monitors says that it welcomes the open debate on the topic. So much so that they’ve decided to invite anyone interested to join them for free drinks on July 22. Details are yet to be advised – which makes it sound a tad like a bit of a last minute crisis control exercise!

 Interestingly Media Monitors has new owners – one of those private equity investors.  One wonders what they think (or understand) about these issues.

No related posts.

Judging by what I’ve been reading lately there seems to be a resurgence internationally in the PR audit – a tool that I used quite a lot in my early days of public relations, but which little has been heard of in recent years.

A US blog PR Audit: A Critical Path to Measuring Success sums up quite nicely the parameters around a PR Audit and if the concept is entirely foreign to you then this is probably a great way to bring yourself up to date.

As I see it most Australian PR professionals are on top of messaging these days – which wasn’t the case a decade ago.

Where a PR Audit adds value is that it looks beyond day-to-day messaging and delivery of communication. Rather it focuses on more fundamental questions that range from the structure of the PR function within the organisation to the effectiveness of the communication that is taking place.

In my experience some PR Directors and Managers can get quite defensive about PR Audits, thinking that they are going to find holes in what they are doing.

I think that’s short-sighted. In fact I think PR Audits are a great way to demonstrate to management what PR is already achieving and what more could be achieved.

They are particularly useful in better aligning PR and communication strategies with business objectives. And if a PR Director or PR Manager ever wanted to make a case for an expansion of the PR Department, or a change in reporting lines then there’s nothing better than a PR Audit (with the right terms of reference) to provide the ammunition.

Frankly I’m surprised that management doesn’t insist on PR Audits being done on a more regular basis given the size of some PR Departments. However, I guess few in management even know that the PR Audit tool and other techniques are available.

The bottom line is that a PR Audit can be as narrow or broad as you wish it to be.

Based on what I’m reading from overseas perhaps we will see an upsurge in PR audits in the next year or so.

Related posts:

1. New tool gives reason for PR Manager’s to revisit corporate reputation management
2. Addressing dysfunctional PR agency relationships

If Australian PR Directors and Managers are a reflection of their US PR professional counterparts then the odds are that there is still a glaring lack of measurement or evaluation techniques being used by the PR Departments of Australian organisations.

That’s because a survey published yesterday in PR News based on questions put to nearly 800 US communications and PR professionals suggests that around 70 percent are not doing any serious measurement or evaluation of their PR activities.

The overall survey was about social media and digital measurement within public relations. However, what really surprised me was the answer to a more general question about attitudes towards, and the use of, PR measurement and evaluation techniques viz:

Q: Has media measurement become more sophisticated in your organisation in the last year?

And this was the analysis of the answers given!

30%  – Yes, robust system that includes digital measurement  

22% -  Just starting to think about it                                                   

17%  – We would like to be more sophisticated, but we don’t know where to start                                                    

11%  -  No, still counting print impressions                                       

10% -  It’s a 2011 goal                                                                                

10%  -  Other                                                                                                

Source: PR News and Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, based on 762 survey respondents (above figures rounded).

I’m really surprised by these results – especially the fact that not only 70 percent are not doing any serious measurement, but that close to 40 percent (or nearly 60% of these) are just starting to think about measurement and evaluation of their PR or don’t know where to start!

If that’s the use of measurement among US PR professionals then it suggests to me that the Australian figures would be even lower.

I have to admit that measurement (or lack of it) in PR has been a real bugbear of mine. Sure some aspects of it can get really complicated. But equally a lot of it can be really simple. In the last decade I’ve written several articles in PR Influences  (see Measurement, evaluation and monitoring) trying to explain the basic fundamentals of measurement and evaluation in public relations.

It seems to me that some of reasons why Australian organisations choose not to employ public relations measurement and evaluation techniques include:

1. Much of what Australian PR Departments do has become process driven, functional or reactive.  That results in a pre-occupation on doing tasks, and sending out media releases which results in a focus on ‘outputs’ rather than outcomes (although even outputs can be measured!)
2. Australian PR has become synonymous with media relations and publicity and too much of this is still evaluated on the volume of press clippings (although there’s some easily applied techniques that will provide more meaningful insights).
3. Even when it comes to media there’s often too much of a self-focus, inward-looking, emphasis on how much coverage ‘we’ are getting; rather than comparing against competitors. (In my view one of the most useful of the ‘simple’ media evaluation techniques is share of discussion).
4. Not enough emphasis is placed on ‘outcomes’ ie what change in attitude or behaviour has happened as a result of our communication?
5. Lastly, whether it’s the internal PR Department’s budget, or the budget for the PR agency, my experience is that in Australia there’s seldom an automatic budget allocation for measurement or evaluation. That means measurement doesn’t get any real thought or consideration and is put in the ‘too hard’ basket or as in the PR News/ Waggener Edstrom Worldwide survey – ‘its something we’ll think about for next year!’.

Having said all that I know from first-hand experience that some Australian organisations do make serious efforts to be accountable and apply measurement and evaluation techniques to their PR efforts.

But I think they are the exception rather than the rule. And I suspect the percentage would be even lower than the 30 percent of US PR professionals that claim in this survey to conduct a ‘robust’ measurement to support their PR initiatives.

However given my attitude towards evaluation I’m happy to be proven wrong and be told that there’s dozen’s of Australian PR Directors and Managers busily engaged in measurement and evaluation – and proving to their bosses the value PR is bringing to their organisation.  That would be encouraging news!

Note: Unfortunately access to the full results of the survey, jointly run by PR News, and specialist public relations and digital communications agency Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, is restricted to subscribers of PR News so I can’t comment any more on the results than I have –or give you access.

Related posts:

1. Australian online newsroom survey – food for thought for PR Directors

One of the real issues PR Directors and PR Managers face internally is the sometimes skittish attitude towards PR at the CEO level or by their colleagues – particularly those in marketing.  PR can either be viewed with disdain making it a hard slog to get enough traction to show what PR can do; or conversely PR is seen as a ‘wonder cure’ or cheap substitute and all kinds of unrealistic expectations are foisted on it. Neither is particulary helpful – or rational.

Those of you in ‘PR land’ who relate to this situation might therefore get some comfort – and help – from a major initiative just launched by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) called the “Business Case for Public Relations”. It an ambitious and unashamably and typically American ‘pushy’ advocacy campaign launched by PRSA in the last day or so which is aimed to flow through to their PRSA International Conference: Delivering Value in San Diego from Nov 7-10 and beyond.

Some of the aims of the campaign quoted by PRSA include

• to foster more accurate and better-informed perceptions surrounding the value and roles of public relations,
• to educate key stakeholders about public relations’ functions and outcomes, demonstrate its strategic value and enhance its reputation
• (help) sell-in public relations services to your clients and management

We’ve all heard these words and claims before. However on this occasion the PRSA has put together a wide array of resources in the way of articles, papers, speeches and case studies. Included in the package are suggested “message points” to use to sell your management and colleagues on the role PR can play within the business environment.

It’s all good stuff, and it would be even better if one was going to the San Diego Conference to get involved in all the sessions around this theme.

If you struggle to get the strategic value of PR understood, you need some fresh insights into measurement and evaluation techniques or you just need some different perspectives it’s worth taking a peek at the PRSA website and looking at the ton of resources that’s been put together.  Regrettably a proportion of what’s there can’t be accessed unless you are a PRSA member (I’m fortunate having been a member of over 25 years); but I am sure you will find some nuggets of gold in what can be accessed.

I’m hoping for much more to come out of the San Diego conference which I’ll be logged into through my PRSA membership.  If there’s anything of interest I’ll do some posts.

Grant Common

Related posts:

1. New tool gives reason for PR Manager’s to revisit corporate reputation management
2. PR and Crisis Management: Reduce the risk by planning and training