DummySpit

Jim Nail of the US media evaluation provider TNS is arguing against the use of the three evaluation categories - Output , Out-take and Outcome - as being too generalised and non-specific. Here’s the link to his blog, http://blog.cymfony.com/2007/10/outputs-and-out.html. These terms were developed by Walter Lindenmann in the early 1990s as a neat categorisation and have been promoted through many books and industry/academic papers.

Output is the production of the public relations effort (messages sent). This is the Presentation stage and may include measurement of press releases and other communication methods

Out-takeor Out-growth is the understanding and retention of messages by publics. It looks at the attention, comprehension and acceptance.

Outcome is the effect of the PR effort on attitudes, opinions and behaviours. This measures the actions of the target groups.

There is also a more recent Out-measure, called Outflow that considers the build of value by improvements to reputation and the creation of organisational/stakeholder relations.

This group of Out-measures is convenient and, as far as I can see, widely accepted. What’s your view?

When I sought views on research priorities for research into public relations via DummySpit earlier in the year, the leading topic was “the impact of technology on public relations”. Quite fortuitously, Prof John Pavlik of Rutgers University in the US has written a paper on this topic, ‘Mapping the Consequences of Technology on Public Relations’ which has just been published by the Institute for Public Relations at www.instituteforpr.org/research. Prof Pavlik, who some 20 years ago wrote the excellent “Public relations: What research tells” demonstrates his renowned clarity in writing for both academic and practitioner audiences in this very readable paper.

In it, he reviews four areas of impact and implications of technology:

1) How PR practitioners do their work

2) The content or messages developed and delivered in PR

3) Organisational structure, culture and management

4) Relationships between or among organisations and their publics

The paper looks at current research outcomes, case studies, anecdotal evidence and interviews. He also recommends a research agenda for further investigation. It’s important to note that the paper’s view is far wider than media relations which often dominates discussion of online PR. 

I’d recommend the paper to all those interested in the future of public relations and will be using it with my PR students at Bournemouth University.

After three months of discussion, the Study of the Priorities for Public Relations Research (PR Priorities Study - final report) has been completed. The initial piloting was undertaken on DummySpit in April and led to the setting of 26 public relations topics. These were sent to a Delphi study panel (of experts) in five continents covering top academics, leading practitioners and the CEOs of PR industry bodies. After three rounds of intensive email debate, the Top Ten PR research topics are:

1) Public relations’ role in contributing to strategic decision-making, strategy development and realisation, and organisational functioning

2) The value that public relations creates for organisations through building social capital, managing key relationships and realising organisational advantage

3) The measurement and evaluation of public relations, both offline and online

4) Public relations as a fundamental management function

5) Professional skills in public relations; analysis of the industry’s need for education

6) Research into standards of performance among PR professionals; the licensing of practitioners

7) Management of corporate reputation; measurement of reputation

Ethics in public relations

9) Integration of public relations with other communication functions; the scope of public relations practice; discipline boundaries

10) Management of relationships

Just outside the top ranked priorities are:

11) Client/employer understanding of public relations

12) The impact of technology on public relations practice and theory.

This report is the first completed international study on public relations research priorities (using a Delphi panel) since the mid-1990s and gives valuable insight into the ‘front and centre’ public relations research areas around the world.

The results will allow academics and practitioners to work closely together to improve understanding of public relations and its most effective and ethical use. It is a benchmark that all research plans and funding can be judged by for relevance and importance.

On a helpful new blog at the Institute for Public Relations, Sean Williams of Goodyear in the US describes low cost methods of judging the effectiveness of the tyre maker’s internal communications, especially on its intranet. 

They have used internal discussion groups to quickly evaluate the corporate intranet and a daily poll question of key topics. It has built dialogue with staff, with around 150 joining the intranet discussion groups and 800 a day taking part in the poll. Some 450 a day check the poll results. 

The outcomes of the Intranet review have been very constructive – “we did get opinions that differed significantly from those we brought to the exercise. Our intranet is better for the experience”, says Sean. 

Although he says the polling methods aren’t scientific, they are a good example of how “little and often” can build up a period-on-period picture of communications. By using internal resources and a mindset set that allows modification, it can be as valuable as formal research methods. 

In Paul Noble and my book, Evaluating Public Relations, we recognised that many communicators want to research but are stumped by cost or lack of knowledge. That’s why we have shown how media evaluation can be set up using a simple Excel-based spreadsheet or even a paper-based clerical method. The information obtained immediately assists media relations activity. 

Doing evaluation is not hard and it gives immediate benefits – Congratulations to Sean for sharing Goodyear’s approach.

In research I have been undertaking, two of the topics were the management of reputation and the management of relationships. One of my respondents, a top corporate communications person in a multinational firm, responded with a very good question – “Who is the owner of the relationship: the PR professional or the business line?” Acknowledging one of the favoured models in public relations is “PR = relationship management” (Bruning & Ledingham), he has raised the very challenging question of how can this model be operationalised.

Although public relations academics and practitioners are staking out this ground as their own, the reality in the maze of relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders is that they may not be able to control or even substantially influence this field. For example, they could do so in the relationships between the organisation and government and with communities in general but it is almost impossible to “manage” the relationship between a sales force and its customers, purchasing staff and suppliers, and the Chief Financial Officer and bankers. These are crucial relationships to the performance of the organisation and are “owned” by those who are responsible for, in this case, sales, purchasing and finance. 

In a recent Harvard Business Review* paper on reputational risk, Eccles, Newquist and Schatz propose that one person is put in charge of reputation in each organisation. Although 84% of respondents to an Economist Intelligence Unit survey in 2005 said it is the CEO’s job, the authors say, “the CEO does not have time to manage the ongoing process of coordinating all the activities that affect operational risk [including reputational risk]” (p.110).  

This person will be responsible for “assessing reputation, evaluating reality, identifying and closing gaps, and monitoring changing beliefs and expectations” (p.114). For this task, they suggest the COO, CFO or those with responsibility for risk management, strategic planning or internal audit as “they have the credibility and control some of the necessary resources to do the job” (p.114).

But what of the claims of PR/corporate communication people? “In general, those whose existing responsibilities pose potential conflicts probably shouldn’t be chosen. People holding top “spin” jobs such as the heads of marketing and corporate communications, fall into this category” (p.114). 

What strange logic. Why would the COO, CFO and functional managers not have “conflicts” which affect their bonuses and position within the organisation or their ability to take an objective view? As the heads of marketing and, especially, corporate communications are in contact with the widest range of stakeholders unlike the inward-facing senior management staff, surely they are best suited to the task of monitoring reputation and coordinating responses. They usually have a greater set of research skills than operations and financial senior management, too. 

What’s your view on this model of the single person to monitor and manage reputation and organisational relationships? Can it be operationalised or is it a coordination task? If it isn’t the CEO, then who should be responsible? 

* Eccles, RG, Newquist, SC and Schatz, R (2007) Reputation and its risks, Harvard Business Review, February, pp104-114

David Phillips kindly sent me a posting on the role of ROI in Marketing from Brian Carroll’s B2B Lead Generation Blog -  http://blog.startwithalead.com/weblog/2007/05/the_difference_.html - which discusses the difference between ROI and marketing accountability. As this is an issue in public relations, I have posted this comment:

Part of the problem with ROI is that a financial concept is applied to a non-financial activity. Sure, marketing and sales activity should result in financial results but the misuse of specific business language in an effort to get understanding from the Board is only piling pressure on marketers and communicators.

One of the definitions of ROI is the ratio of how much profit or cost saving is realised from an activity against its actual cost, expressed as a percentage. In reality few marketing or communication programmes can be expressed in that way because of the problems in putting a credible financial value to the results achieved. In 2004, the UK’s Institute of Public Relations said, “this (use of ROI in PR campaign) is not only confusing but misleading” when the term PR ROI is used loosely. Unless the objectives of the activity are solely to achieve a sales or financial outcome, ROI is meaningless.

For marketers, the application of ROI limits their role to sales support and ignores the brand and reputational issues. In PR, I’ve long argued that the use of business language is a fundamental sign of insecurity and a lack of confidence. It seems that marketing has the same affliction.

To read more on my views on the role of ROI in public relations, see this article on the PRism online academic journal,  http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/Issue3/Watson.pdf

The latest announcement from Cision, the owner of the Delahaye Index, says that Microsoft has the “best reputation in the media” based on (according to the Cision press release of May 7) “a score of how many positive and negative reputation driving attributes are found within each story”.

It goes on to breathlessly to say that Cisco Systems ranks second because of “high profile coverage derived from Cisco’s negotiations with Apple over the name of the iPhone” and acquisitions. Following on is General Motors which has roared up to the top three having been “ranked in last place” a year ago.

Dummyspit isn’t quibbling over who is first, second, third or tenth. That’s irrelevant although league tables are a much-used tactic for creating media coverage. Our question is over the misuse of the term, ‘reputation’ and the claim by Cision North America’s CEO Steve Newman that “corporate reputation is uniquely measurable through the media, as news affects and reflects public sentiment.”

That’s wrong. A generation of study has suggested that media may have agenda setting properties but it doesn’t necessarily shift public sentiment. And it won’t always reflect public opinion. That’s wishful thinking by PR practitioners and service providers and is a classic example of the substitution game – where output is confused with outcome.

Reputation, as this blog has said before, is given to organisation by those with whom it is engaged. The media is just one of those stakeholders. It can reflect a positive or negative sympathy towards an organisation and there’s no doubt that media analysis can judge tone and favourability. This factor (sympathy, tone or favourability) is an affective component but leaves out the cognitive element. It is thus worth noting the comments of Prof David Dozier, one of the gurus of public relations research, who commented that reputation may be based on direct experiences as well as on processed messages. (Dozier 1993: 230)

On April 20, I asked DummySpit readers for comments on a list of research topics for public relations. Some 24 were listed and you could nominate up to ten of them for a prioritisation of the topics that practitioners and academics consider should be investigated.

Here is the first round of results that have come from Australia, Canada, India, Ireland Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States. Respondents were practitioners, academics and industry people. They worked in consultancies, government, universities industry, non-profits and suppliers.

1 The impact of technology on public relations practice and theory
2 The measurement and evaluation of public relations, both offline and online
3=  Integration of public relations with other communication functions; the scope of public relations practice; discipline boundaries
3= Management of corporate reputation; measurement of reputation
5= Client understanding of public relations strategy and tactics
5= Ethics in public relations
7= Research into standards of performance among PR professionals; the licensing of practitioners
7= Professional skills in public relations; Analysis of the industry’s need for education; Theories of practice
7= The place of “word-of-mouth” and buzz marketing in public relations practice
10= Strategic planning of public relations programmes
10= Quality of public relations services
10= Crisis management and communication; issues management

Just outside this top group, which numbers twelve and not ten, were: Management of relationships, stakeholder approaches, negotiation and conflict resolution; The definition of public relations; International issues in public relations; Cross-cultural public relations; The expectations of users of public relations; The client: consultancy/adviser interface; and the role of PR in community/social responsibility programmes.

It is sad but not surprising that the old chestnut of measurement and evaluation ranked second, despite the welter of widely available information and research on the subject. In Delphi studies in 1994 and 1997, it ranked as top priority for research. Not much has changed in a decade.

In addition to the topics that were originally proposed, several others were suggested, including:
- The place of communication and PR professionals in the boardroom
- Recruitment of better quality entry into the profession
- Public relations as a fundamental management function
- The role of public relations in contributions to strategic decision-making, strategy development and realisation, and organisational functioning
- The part public relations plays in the creation of value for organisations, through building social capital, managing key relationships and realising organisational or competitive advantage
- Social media and its role in public relations
- Identification of the areas of cross-over with, for example, HR, social marketing and especially the management function

Or is a more global view needed, such as “looking ahead ten years, PR will need to have a number of over-riding elements to survive. We have to be able to manage uncertainty (notably in communications channels), change, risk and opportunity. We will need a portfolio of relationship capabilities to hone research, skills and technologies.”

Now for Round 2 - Would you replace any of the top priorities with one or more of these additional topics? Please join in the discussion with your comments on the first round of ranking of the topics and suggest the research questions that should be asked on these topics. For example, 65% of respondents agreed that “the impact of technology on public relations practice and theory” was one of their priorities but what are the questions that we should be asking? That question can also be applied to all those priorities.

Over to you and your feedback.

I’m about to conduct a Delphi study into the priorities for public relations research over the next 10 year and have identified 24 topics that could be studied. The list, which is not in a priority ranking, has been drawn from previous studies, conference and academic papers, and by monitoring offline and online articles and discussion.

I’d like your views on what the priorities should be (nominate up to ten topics) and any gaps in this analysis.

- Strategic planning of public relations programmes
- Quality of public relations services
- Research into standards of performance among PR professionals; the licensing of practitioners
- Integration of PR with other communication functions; the scope of PR practice; discipline   boundaries
- The measurement and evaluation of public relations, both offline and online
- Client understanding of public relations strategy and tactics
- Professional skills in PR; Analysis of the industry’s need for education; Theories of practice
- Management of relationships; stakeholder approaches; negotiation and conflict resolution
- The definition of public relations
- The impact of technology on public relations practice and theory
- The culture of public relations
- International issues in public relations; Cross-cultural public relations
- The image of public relations; public relations’ position as a fundamental management function
- The expectations of users of public relations; The client: consultancy/adviser interface
- Public relations’ role in organisational change; Internal communications
- The place of “word-of-mouth” and buzz marketing in public relations practice
- Ethics in public relations
- Relations with the media
- The history of public relations
- Gender issues in public relations practice
- The role of PR in community/social responsibility programmes
- Management of corporate reputation; measurement of reputation
- Crisis management and communication; issues management
- Political communication and advocacy (lobbying)

Please consider this list and post your responses, as I’m keen to run this discussion in parallel with the more formal research process, I’ll keep you updated with summaries from two research discussions and we can see where they converge or separate.