Saturday, October 23, 2010

Chapter 12 - "Measuring Successful Relationships"

They say “measurement and evaluation is important to improve the probability of achieving program success..” but how?

So previously we learnt that evaluation can be conducted in the beginning of a campaign to inform about the cost, etc; throughout the life of a campaign (process), or at the end of event to sum up research and campaign activities. Now, I will discuss the 3 ways in which evaluation can be done as a formative and summative measurements tool, such as by:

Metrics: it’s a method of evaluation to uncover precise characteristics about reporters or journalist in the way they cover stories. That is, a measurement of the work behaviour of certain journalist. It is to know their position in a story, rather than what is published. It is important because once we know their characteristics/position in a certain issue, a media profile can be built.

For example, there is one newspaper that cover on the development of a small town. You live around there and you are not in support of the construction due to environmental issues. Then, you can collect all the articles about the development written by a journalist over a period of time. After that we can do coding (or by content analysis) to find out what is his/her stand is in the development. It will reveal the level of hostility, dismay, or hope that the individual composes around the subject. Then, since we know their position, we can do something to bring them to a more pleasant situation.

Message exposure: is a way to evaluate how the media and other stakeholder might view the event. Usually involves collecting clippings about our issue/event. Then we look at the style and tone of language used in those published material. There are 3 chances of our event to be reported: objectively, positively, or negatively. It could be a success if the event is reported positively, and vice versa.

& Finally is by Media Impressions: by measuring the number of audience who are exposed to the material in the media. We can measure effective cost per impression by dividing the total cost of the campaign by the total effective impressions (target audience).

These 3 methods are beneficial to maintain cost-effectiveness. We can also use that to bill clients.. Other ways to measure success is by surveys or focus groups which most of you readers are more familiar with. we can use either of these methods or a combination of these for a campaign to be successful.

So.. which one you think is the best way to evaluate? Feel free to comment!


  1. PR Measurement and Evaluation are indeed important to improve the probability of achieving program success, as it is not like you can just simply reach for a chart and instantly show how public relations helped an organization to achieve its goals, isn't it?

    Thus, I personally think that all 3 methods are the best way to evaluate, however, I think that we can't rely too much on media impressions' result as its just based on number which sometimes might wrong.

    Message impressions, this factors in the circulation and/or reach of the media outlets that carried your message. For example, a campaign for a new store is mentioned in several newspapers and magazines, then we can add up the circulation of these publications to get the estimated "media impressions". It indeed useful to track the penetration of a message, however, like I said earlier, this number doesn't reflect how many people actually saw the message-only how many were exposed to it.

  2. Hi Nadia, I am very interested in your topic for this week, which is about “measurement and evaluation is important to improve the probability of achieving program success”. Since we know how public’s opinion and reporter, we can easily improve our event better in the future.

    As Nadia’s topic has mentioned about three methods that is one of a part to built a successful campaign. Three of those are important but only one is a most effective and precise, that is Message exposure. Because it is the mainly simple way to evaluate how media think about the event by checking their report, see hoe they write about and their estimation, which is based on what Nadia wrote, objectively-positively-negatively. If the event is wrote as negatively way, so that is time to improve everything and see what have we missed. Therefore, we might have a better result in the next time.

    I agree with measurement by surveys and focus group, especially we are living in a development of technology, we can easy done our method as just using Facebook or Twitter.

  3. hello Nadia.
    I think the best way to get your stories covered in the media is to first do research and find the characteristics and interests of the journalists, which was mentioned in your first method.
    We should write an angle related to what they are interested in, and try to draw their attention to publish something we demand.
    I think i've read it in the book, that if a PR person prepare a client's presentation with the topic that their journalist is familiar with, then at the last minute this particular journalist couldn't attend the meeting and you have no background about the new journalist replacing him/her, then the whole aim of this presentation could be messed up.
    You get what i mean?

    What i'm trying to point out is something similar to your first example of the metrics method, which i second it.
    But yes, other methods are also significant, since we also need to consider the stakeholders and audiences.

  4. Hi Nadia. Well to me, I find that the most useful method out of the three mentioned is the last one - Media Impressions. As audiences make up the highest percentage of the mass, this method can result in a more accurate results. Unlike the first two, whereby it analyze journalists and stakeholders, it only allows a limited area of work.

    However, using all three methods at any one time would produce an even more accurate results if it is possible to. Besides, it doesn't cost alot of money to make use of all three.