PR Not Measuring Up
Last weeks’ Holmes’ Report covered its recent survey of more than 100 PR Agency principles – the
results of which point to some of the problems that continue to make research and evaluation a major issue for the industry.
"In general, their responses suggested that an failure of commitment- rather than the absence of necessary tools and techniques—is behind the industry’s poor performance."
Damn right. Never have we had more tools. And more arrive every week. The barrier however remains a lack of commitment at the top. Too many organizations I talk to are only looking to measure where Executives demand it. It’s not viewed as a key ingredient in strategic planning and establishing a proactive dialog with the business. As a result, it’s not resourced or budgeted for.
Look at any of the best-in-class measurement efforts – like those at Southwest airlines – and you’ll see the reverse in action: a commitment from the most senior levels of the company to measuring not just to validate spend, but to drive business strategy; dedicated resources; and they’ve put their money where there mouth is (and this is one very, very, very budget sensitive organization).
According to the study, Agency leaders believe the biggest obstacle to effective measurement is the unwillingness of clients to pay additional fees for evaluation Why not just mandate it as part of any budget? If you aren’t clear on the outcomes, and can’t measure your effectiveness in achieving those outcomes, why work for the client? Holmes gets this:
“At the very least, that suggests the need for a broader dialogue between agencies and their clients about the importance of research. But it might also require a change in attitude on the part of agency leaders, who need to realize that investing in measurement is the only way to guarantee that clients value the services agencies provide and commit to PR spending in good times and bad.”
I just don’t understand how any PR department or practitioner can operate without a measurement program in place. Measurement isn’t monitoring. Monitoring isn’t measurement. What I am talking about here is a deep understanding of how communications impacts business outcomes. An understanding based on research not just of what occurred in the media, but also in the minds of your customers. Without that you shouldn’t expect resources, budget, even a job.
Email Is So Yesterday…
I remember the excitement I felt when email first landed in my lap – literally, on a Dell notebook – it was some version of Lotus. Soon, I’m hoping, it will be gone in relation to much of the work I need to get done. When recently working on a major site redevelopment a Wiki did so much more for the team in terms of communication – we all edited content in real-time, in the same place, without any confusion in relation to versions. It made a significant task so much more productive.
BusinessWeek touches on the utility of blogs and Wikis as a replacement to email. They start by going down the old route that most of the email you get is a waste of time: “Indeed, the onetime productivity wonder has turned into a maddening time waster. Despite the brawniest corporate filters, more than 60% of what swarms into corporate in-boxes is spam.”
That isn’t why I don’t like email anymore. Its more about what I do like about the virtual collaboration space of the Wiki. “ Among them: private workplace wikis (searchable, archivable sites that allow a dedicated group of people to comment on and edit one another’s work in real time); blogs (chronicles of thoughts and interests); Instant Messenger (which enables users to see who is online and thus chat with them immediately rather than send an e-mail and wait for a response); RSS (really simple syndication, which lets people subscribe to the information they need); and more elaborate forms of groupware such as Microsoft Corp.’s (MSFT ) SharePoint, which allows workers to create Web sites for teams’ use on projects.”
So far, companies have invested 95% of their spending in business processes, according to Social Life of Information author and former Xerox Corp. (XRX ) Palo Alto Research Center director John Seely Brown. A scant 5% has gone toward supporting ways to mine a corporation’s human capital. That’s why fans say the beyond-e-mail workplace will become a key competitive advantage. In the global race for innovation, it’s not as much about leveraging what’s inside your factories’ machines as what’s in your employees’ heads.
It’s worth a read.
Transparency In The Participatory Era
One of my new laws for communicators is “the more you participate, the more transparent the dialog becomes”. Think of it as an exponential curve with each step driving more transparency. Browsing through Gizmodo I stumbled across this hilarious example.
Here we have a new product – which while I agree is a tad stupid, will probably find a home in plenty of stockings. But the more the company the communicates, the more it lands itself in hot water. Traditional media might have had a hard time reporting this one. But not participatory media, here there is plenty of virtual real estate in which the dialog can unfold for all to see. And the tone of the dialog is laid bare for all to see. The result, transparency at its best.
Stonyfield Farms
Great post on one of my blog heroes Stonyfield Farms. Here’s a quote:
Stonyfield’s sales have also increased 25 percent over the last year, and the company has just begun a major expansion that will double the size of its existing plant … All that with almost no traditional advertising." Gary (CEO) comments: "The proof, first of all, is that on our website, we have 750,000 subscribers to our four ‘Moos Letters.’ Dannon doesn’t have that, Yoplait doesn’t have that, Kraft doesn’t have that"
They get that its all about participation. And so, how does a company rationalize new marketing strategies and entering the blogosphere. Gary says it all here:
Underneath it all, Gary says, is the constant creation of new strategies. "We never knew what was really going to work because there were no models for us," he explains. "We led with the only things we really knew — our yogurt and our causes."
What’s your cause?
Donna kindly responded to my piece below on the Kryptonite thing. It’s worth reading the comment – she makes some fair points. In response I’d say:
a lock based on the effectiveness of the lock? Thieves don’t care how
we communicate an issue, they care about whether or not they can defeat
a lock on the street." The answer is yes – but you can’t break the company, the lock and the brand from each other. They are one. That’s why I didn’t buy. Oh, and theives aren’t the audience, bikers are – especially those of us stupid enough to fork out thousands on a new bike. We really care how good the company that made the good lock is. And if you aren’t telling us that where we are reading (aka, blogs) – we won’t find out.
So, here is another thought. Kryptonite is clearly a good, "do no evil" kind of company. Start framing this one positively. Show us how incredibly strong these locks are. Use every opportunity to talk about that. And issue a $1m challenge to anyone who can pick it using a Bic pen. Take it to the market. Explaining the mechanics of the past is of less interest to us prospective buyers than the integrity of the company and product today.
Maybe I’ll get a Kryptonite lock for xmas?
Santa?