You wouldn’t buy the wrong sized shoes... yet PR has a few shoes on the wrong feet

“If it’s not measured, it’s not managed” – A concept that remains decisively fixed in my mind when reflecting on the contentious issue of measurement for the PR discipline. However, ‘earned media’ where customers become the channel leads PROs into great difficulty as they lack control over generated content and are unable to ascertain the scale of word of mouth and viral campaigns, therefore are the ideals of establishing a universal set of metrics for the profession realistic and even so, can they ever be truly reliable? Davies (2009) contends a broader, longer-term view of the social media landscape should be implemented, as short-term analysis drives initial results but fails to demonstrate how brand perceptions evolve over time. The CIPR 2011 Social Media Measurement Guidelines identify this in their recommendation of an influence rating/ranking recognising that influence can change over time. However it is important to note, these guidelines are still a ‘work in progress’. 

With a lack of consensus over the applicability of conventional metrics to social media or clearly defined best practices for measuring its influence, it is difficult for PROs to evaluate fixed objectives for online campaigns (Gillin, 2008). However, one metric which is not accepted for social media is advertising value equivalence (AVE), formerly implemented for measuring traditional print and broadcast coverage, there is simply no AVE for a ‘Tweet’, blog mentions or Facebook fan pages (Wallace, 2010). However, there are a range of metrics established; unique browsers, average time spent on sites, frequencies are just a handful, but before implementing tools of measurement PROs need to determine whether they are measuring financial/relationship outcomes, social capital or rankings/the conversation index (Paine, 2007).

The Conversation Index formulated by Boyd (Cited, Paine, 2007) is a valuable tool for PROs. Measuring the degree of conversation generated through counting the number of comments posted and track backs  is ideally suited to PR; a discipline which seeks to engage and strengthen relationships with key publics. Effectively evaluating quality is just as important as quantity, if not more so; content analysis measures perceptions of organisations/brands by pinpointing key messages and themes. Rankings are simply not enough when it comes to PR although can be useful when correlated with other media tactics specifically as rankings are based upon the number of links to your site and how interesting individuals find it (Paine, 2007). Yet as Solis (2010) indicates; ‘It’s important to understand that in social networks, influence is not derived by the quantity of followers, friends, clicks, or “likes.” Nor is it discernible by the frequency of which one participates in their respective communities. While these serve as indicators of influence, they are not necessarily constant factors in its quantification’. Pete Cashmore; chief executive of Mashable is the most influential Briton on Twitter; not because he has 2, 276, 238 followers but because of the level of social activity he generates.

Let’s look at how the above metrics can be applied; Lauren Goodger recently launched the product - Laurens Way Tan. Using Twitter and Facebook as a platform to promote the new product, PROs could:

- Measure the number of individuals who click through to the website and ‘Shop Laurens Way’ page on Facebook. Engagement durations vs. Bounce rates.

- Counting the number of comments posted/re-tweets/mentions/track backs.

- Content analysis; whether perceptions are positive, neutral or detrimental. 

- Cross-referencing the Conversation Index with product sales.

- Increased rankings since online campaign launched; Twitter followers, Facebook ‘likes’.

This PR Week article has a great social media case study on measurement and is worth a read to get to grips with the multiplicity of tools and measuring the value of social media coverage:

 Social Media Measurement: The Experts at Work

However inconsistencies arise in analytic tools calling for a standardisation in measurement parameters. Black (2010) identifies that differences occur in how to count visitors based on the concept of sessions. Various design settings count sessions differently, profoundly impacting on reported numbers leading to inaccuracies and incomparable results between sites. Multi-tab browsing can aid in the confusion as users flick intermittently between pages totalling up multiple, separate sessions. Whereas the same activity pattern could be viewed as one session as visitors returning within a given time duration, count as part of the original visit.

Consistency of process is also an issue; as control of processing functions is down to the user. Filtering mechanical traffic from spiders/robots can be set to varying degrees or completely excluded. Users have the capability to manipulate the traffic results despite it being accepted as best practice to filter spiders/robots (Black, 2010).

So you can see where the discrepancies in measurement can arise, highlighting the importance of credible, third party, ‘not-for-profit’ organisations such as BPA Worldwide which retain ‘A Level Playing Field’. As fragmentation occurs and strains on the economy intensify, PROs face stiff competition when pitching to clients as they demand measurable ROI; access to comparable, standardised traffic data which third party websites can provide is highly valuable. Equally it can strengthen a strategy by gauging who, when and what sites to work with in targeting key publics; in effect boosting reputation within the industry.