Search results

This opinion piece reviews the forces driving the growth of public relations measurement between the mid‐1980s and the present day. Looking to the future, it discusses the increasing importance of reputation as a key intangible corporate asset and discusses the emerging efforts to measure reputation and the effectiveness of public relations in building reputation.

This paper aims to develop five public relations scales as a substitutions for models/dimensions that were subject to much criticism. Based on this conceptual re‐evaluation of the excellence study, one of the dominant public relations paradigms, the manuscript proposes a measurement approach for the public relations practice.

This is a conceptual paper based on a critical literature review aimed at understanding the errors in the public relations models conceptualization and their empirical tests. Based on this review, new and improved scales of public relations are proposed.

The study developed five scales of public relations as substitutions for models/dimensions. The study proposed a measurement approach for the public relations practice. Finally, the study concluded that further research advancing the excellence scholarship is essential to better understanding the profession of public relations.

This manuscript creates a measurement approach which public relations practitioners can use to plan, monitor, and evaluate public relations campaigns and ongoing programs, as well as to manage knowledge and expertise of public relations practitioners and departments, and the expectations of the dominant coalition toward the public relations unit.

This re‐conceptualization can finally address the criticism of the earlier models and dimensions of public relations, establish a measurement approach for the practice of public relations, as well as provide a tool that can be used by both academic and practitioners in planning, monitoring, evaluating, and managing public relations.

Given the link between quality relationships and supportive behaviours among organisations and publics, it is not surprising that public relations scholars and practitioners have turned their attention to trying to measure public relationships and understanding their value for organisations and publics. As part of the development of a diagnostic tool for measuring relationships, the present study attempted to test a measurement scale for the organisation‐public relationship. This research effort was designed to test empirically Hon and Grunig’s proposed organisation‐public relationship instrument. Although each of the two data sets displayed slightly different operationalised items, the two groups of subjects similarly perceived the six‐factor (trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, commitment, exchange relationship, communal relationship) measures as a valid and reliable instrument for measuring their relationship with the university.

Publicly-held companies collectively allocate tens of millions of dollars each year to investor relations, yet little research has been conducted into how investor relations officers (IROs) try to determine the effectiveness of this investment. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the above issues.

This exploratory study is based on a survey (n=384) of IROs who are members of the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI), the world's largest professional investor relations association.

Respondents strongly rebuked using share price as a valid measure of investor relations performance. A factor analysis revealed that IROs use four factors to measure program success (listed in order of stated importance): first, international C-suite assessment; second, relationship assessment; third, outreach assessment; and fourth, external assessment. IROs at large-cap companies place significantly more importance on both C-suite assessment and relationship assessment than their peers at small-caps.

These results may not be generalizable to IROs who are non-NIRI members or investor relations consultants. Cross-cultural studies on this topic are needed.

The evaluative factors that emerged in this study may be used by IROs to develop and refine their evaluation metrics relative to their peers.

This is one of the first and largest studies to specifically examine program measurement and evaluation in the context of investor relations. These findings help set the stage for future work in this area.

While investor relations have become an established corporate function, research into how investor relations officers (IROs) practice measurement and evaluation is limited. The purpose of this paper is to examine which approaches and metrics IROs use to gauge their success.

To address this gap in the literature, this study surveyed (n=384) the corporate membership of the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI), the world's largest investor relations association, on the topic of measurement and evaluation.

The results indicate that IROs strongly (80 percent) believe that mixed-methods (i.e. both quantitative and qualitative methods) should be used to measure the success of investor relations. Mixed-methods advocates place significantly more importance on measurement than IROs that prefer quantitative- or qualitative-only approaches.

The results of this survey indicate that IROs typically place the most value on metrics that are qualitative, non-financial and relationship-oriented. These findings suggest that IROs believe they should be evaluated in large part on their competency at relationship management.

From a benchmarking perspective, these findings suggest that IROs looking to align with their peers should use a mix of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation measures that are non-financial and relationship management-focused.

These findings contribute to recent efforts to explicate a general theory of investor relations. While investor relations scholarship has grown in recent years, up until this point, little attention had been paid to measurement and evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the “evaluation deadlock” or “stasis” diagnosed by many authors. The explanation relies on a thought experiment.

The paper is conceptual and builds on a thought experiment inspired by qualitative research such as interviews with communication consultants in Sweden. It makes use of principal–agent theory and Akerlof’s theory of lemon markets.

A plausible explanation for the evaluation stasis requires consideration of practitioners’ self-interest as businesspeople. The deadlock is explained by an anomaly in practitioner populations and passive or active but covert resistance. If the long-time neglect of measurement and evaluation has led to expectation inflation and overpromising, even well-performing actors might shy away from rigorous measurement and evaluation practices in their own mandates, since they fear being measured against promotional, not realistic standards. At the same time, on the level of industry discourse, these practitioners would still advocate for measurement and evaluation in principle, so as to avoid the suspicion of underperformance.

The paper suggests an explanation for further empirical investigation. It does not attempt to demonstrate anything else than that the suggestion is plausible and that it warrants further investigation.

The scientific community engaged in the measurement and evaluation debate appears puzzled by the discrepancy between practitioners’ words and actions. The authors hope that the paper contributes to a more realistic and thus more constructive dialogue between practitioners and academics in the measurement and evaluation debate.

Inspired by Alvesson and Spicer’s concept of functional stupidity, the paper argues that attempts to explain the evaluation stasis have been marked by circumspection and narrowness. At present, explanations for the evaluation stasis tend to focus on lack of knowledge or inadequate systems or frameworks. The paper offers a more comprehensive explanation.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the current state of communication evaluation and measurement (E&M) as a vital field connecting academics and practitioners in communication management.

The authors track recent developments in the field, address the ongoing struggle toward E&M standards, and propose six agenda points for the future E&M debate.

While the authors see an engaged, international interest community making considerable headway in important E&M issues, the conclusion is that several areas require further work: dynamics of standardization; going beyond the effectiveness-based view; internal services evaluation; addressing intervening variables; closer ties to related fields; and dissemination into the wider practice.

The paper gives a pointed reflection of the state of the field and also provides a comprehensive list of current resources for those who aim to further the E&M debate.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and rank the most important topics for research in the field of public relations. An associated outcome was to propose the research questions most closely linked to the prioritised topics.

An international Delphi study on the priorities for public relations research, conducted in 2007 amongst academics, practitioners and senior executives of professional and industry bodies was used to investigate expert opinion on research priorities for public relations. This choice of qualitative methodology replicated earlier studies by McElreath, White and Blamphin, Synnott and McKie, and Van Ruler et al.

The role of public relations in the strategic operation of organisations, and the creation of value by public relations through social capital and relationships were ranked most highly. Some outcomes were comparable with earlier studies; for instance, evaluation of public relations programmes ranked third in this study and was amongst the leaders in the Synnott and McKie study. Only the topic “management of relationships” was wholly new, whereas “impact of technology on public relations practice and theory” ranked much lower than a decade ago.

The Delphi study method is a small scale qualitative process which limits generalisability, unless the choice of “experts” and their active participation can demonstrate that there is validity in its outcomes.

The research gives valuable insight into the main public relations research areas and will allow academics and practitioners to work closely together to improve understanding of public relations.

This is the first completed Delphi study into public relations research priorities since Synnott and McKie.

The aim of this study was to understand how public relations leaders view and use social media analytics (SMA) and the impact of SMA on the public relations function.

The research involved in-depth interviews with chief communication officers (CCOs) from leading multinational corporate brands.

The findings revealed that although CCOs perceive social media analytics as strategically important to the advancement of public relations, the use of social media data is slowed by challenges associated with building SMA capacity.

The research extends public relations theory on public relations as a strategic management function and provides practical insights for building SMA capabilities.

The study is among the first to provide empirical evidence of how companies are using social media analytics to enhance public relations efforts.