One aspect of PR practice which is arguably changing as a consequence of the rise of new media is that of evaluation and measurement. The question of how to measure the impact of PR has long troubled PR practitioners, because how can one evaluate something as diverse and intangible as public relations? This question has become even more difficult to answer after the “new media revolution” has propelled an endless number of new channels, thus creating an “information overload” that is difficult, if not impossible to handle.
Traditionally, evaluation of PR has included methods such as counting total media cuttings however, nowadays, PRPs are struggling to find a way to evaluate new media because it is simply too much information to analyse. At a recent PR and media conference covered by PR Week (9 March), PRPs debated how to monitor new media. Some argued that monitoring and evaluation were no longer useful, while other stressed that PRPs should steer away from attempting to monitor all coverage, and instead focus on those channels that have the most influence. It is not only the massive amount of websites and blogs that make evaluation and measurement problematic, but also the fact that stories now have greater “longevity”. For example when a TV programme is put online after it has been broadcasted, the programme can be viewed several weeks later, which makes it impossible to measure viewer ratings. As Ben Cordle, marketing manager at FHM said:
We used to say that yesterday’s news is tomorrow’s fish and chips. But viewers can now find content weeks later, in it is still relevant
One issue that was not raised in the debate, but one that caught my mind, is the issue of proving PR’s worth. It has always been difficult for PR practitioners to demonstrate the value of PR as a result of the difficulties in measuring and evaluating PR. I have noticed, after looking at different PR consultancies’ websites that PRPs tend to prove the value of their PR campaigns by putting a value to broadcast and press coverage. Brave PR, for example, states that their SPAR campaign resulted in national TV and newspaper coverage, with ad equivalency of £72, 000.
However, if PRPs are struggling to evaluate PR as a result of new media, I suspect they will probably find it increasingly difficult to prove the value of their PR campaigns. If they lack overview over how much exposure their campaign generates, then how can they “prove” its value? I suspect the solution will be to put a value only on those publications that have the most influence. It will certainly be interesting to see how the industry will solve this. What do you think?
3 comments:
I think PRPs will probably try to diminish the influence of those channels that they can't monitor and stick to focussing on traditional print and broadcast media in their evaluation. At the end of the day, these media are still the ones where you can target the greatest number of people at a single time. Technology moves too fast for proper models of evaluation to be established for online media channels so I think new media will remain and 'add on' to traditional PR for sometime to come.
I generally agree with Conway. New media - and the social web in particular - are currently a hype, but one that will eventually go down again. However, as I wrote Part I of my blog on new media as well, there are ways to measure the blogoshpere for example. Media monitoring agencies develop schemes to not only monitor blogs but also evaluate them. Here is a link to what I posted on a German media monitoring agency: http://thesandraspace.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-important-is-it-to-watch-blogs.html
Ok, I'm not familiar with putting links into comments and obviously it did not work out properly. Well, you could find the particular post on www.thesandraspace.blogspot.com, post ed in on 2 January) Sorry!
Post a Comment