Evaluating public relations: a best practice guide to public relations planning, research and evaluation

Citation

Fairchild, M. (2006), "Evaluating public relations: a best practice guide to public relations planning, research and evaluation", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 113-115. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540610646463

During my research for the series of PR evaluation Toolkits, I was struck by how much had been written – especially of an academic nature – about the subject over some 40 years and how modest had been its impact on public relations practice. It was, therefore, with a mixture of anticipation (because of my vested interest) and curiosity (to see “what's new?”) that I read this guide by Tom Watson and Paul Noble.

It takes a very broad overview of the subject, embracing the development of the theory of evaluation in the context of PR's evolution; the processes involved in evaluation; how the architects of recent evaluation models have refined the work of predecessors; and the practical application of evaluation through examples.

The result is something of a hybrid that weaves, somewhat indigestibly at times, the theories of Grunig, Dozier and Pavlik et al. through a labyrinthine guide to evaluation at a more practical level. Which left me wondering for whom is the book intended. It reminded me of the debate among PR practitioners, market researchers and evaluation providers who met under the aegis of PR's professional bodies and PR Week, which eventually gave birth to the Toolkit series. The conclusion was: we have had the theory, let us produce something a busy PR practitioner can actually use. The result was a “workshop manual” approach that adapted the theory of evaluation to a familiar PR planning process.

In fairness, Watson and Noble justify the case for exploring theory:

For some practitioners, theory is “stuff” that gets in the way of “doing PR”. Yet theory is developed from observed practice and helps predict outcomes.

So, not for them the approach favoured by an experienced practitioner who pleaded with the Toolkit planning committee for a “wash and go” solution.

The early chapters are devoted to the principles of PR and evaluation and how the theorists have wrestled with the multi‐faceted nature of PR and the fact that it is not a precise science. There is even a slight dabbling in the links between evaluation and psychology. Watson and Noble debate the complexity of “measuring” public relations with growing recognition of PR's potential contribution to strategic relationship management and corporate social responsibility.

The authors acknowledge the primacy of US theorists but perhaps fail to acknowledge that it is the British who have done most to turn theory into practice. There is much evidence to support my earlier comment about slow progress with references to learned work over four decades and even an attempt to evaluate Roosevelt's New Deal social programmes as far back as the 1930s.

The relevance of theory to implementation is examined with comparisons between evaluation models devised by successive experts such as Cutlip, Center and Broom (the preparation, implementation, impact or PII model), Walter Lindenmann's Public Relations Yardstick, and Jim Macnamara's Macro model. Both Walt Lindenmann and Jim Macnamara collaborated with me on the Toolkit series and endorsed the argument that planning, research and evaluation (PRE) is indivisible from PR itself and not an optional add‐on. This point is underlined by Watson and Noble when they say, “the list of the particular shortcomings related to PRE could be mistaken for the challenges facing public relations in general.”

The authors introduce a fourth version, the unified model, which they claim is simpler and splits out PR programmes with objectives at different levels. They also advocate Tom Watson's Short Term model (typically for media relations‐based campaigns) and continuing model (for long‐term activities), the latter offering feedback for campaign monitoring and modification of messages and the “staying alive” option when keeping issues in the decision frame is important. I could be accused of being partisan but since no methodologies are spelt out in the unified model and the short term and continuing models are skeletal, they fail the acid test of practical application that other models, and the PRE model in particular, set out to achieve.

All this begs a question that a practitioner or student of PR (either of whom will find something of interest in this guide) might reasonably ask: is there a perfect way to evaluate PR? The answer is that there is no one method that will do the job, any more than there is a strategic or creative solution that can be applied universally. The trick is to absorb the best of the theory (of which there is more than enough: five pages of PR book references in this guide alone) and build a flexible evaluation model to meet your own needs. To that extent, this guide is a useful short cut.

At a practical level it contains some useful tips on running a self‐administered media evaluation system, dips into measuring online PR, crisis management, RoI and payment by results, and summarises cases studies, some of them well known and mostly with a strong media evaluation bias. There could have been more references to recent externally designed and internally operated proprietary evaluation systems.

As a non academic, I would have liked to have seen less obscure language in some places, a clearer start, middle and end and a more logical flow (objective‐setting is the penultimate chapter). This is no “workshop manual” but a useful primer for PR students wanting to build their knowledge of evaluation on a more scientific foundation, or for practitioners seeking the best components for a custom‐built model of their own.

It is often remarked that effective evaluation of PR is as elusive as finding the Holy Grail. The risk is that the prize becomes more obscured as the mountain of books on the subject gets higher.

Michael Fairchild is the author of the PRE Toolkit series, published by the IPR.