Thought Leaders Interview: David Geddes
In the last months, we focused on people who started the international discussion on PR measurement and influenced it in different phases within our interview series „Thought Leaders on PR measurement“. In the final part of our interview series, we talked to David Geddes, founder of Geddes Analytics LLC, a firm specializing in business analytics and consulting, and chair of the Coalition for Public Relations Research Standards, Saint Louis, USA. He talks about his professional insights and personal experiences that he gained in the field of communication measurement and evaluation in the last years.
Communicationcontrolling.de: Dr. Geddes, when did you start to deal with questions of PR measurement and evaluation, and why are you especially interested in this topic?
David Geddes: Before joining Fleishman-Hillard in 1995 as senior vice president & partner, and a leader of the research group, I earned an MBA and worked at Sprint, the telecom company. This was the time of the growth of total quality management (TQM) and continuous process improvement (CPI) in business. At the core of TQM/CPI are two key concepts. One is goals, objectives, and process flow. The second is the plan-do-check-act-revise cycle based on measurement at all stages of the business processes. Measurement and evaluation in public relations is simply an application of the TQM/CPI principles to the public relations function.
This interview is part of the series „Thought Leaders in PR measurement” – we’ve talked to 12 people who shaped the international debate on communication measurement in various periods.
cc.de: Why do you think communication measurement is essential for organizations today?
Geddes: To begin, I prefer the terms “research” or “research, measurement, and evaluation.” Measurement data alone is meaningless. You can measure the cubic meters of ocean water flowing into the hull of a sinking ship, but the ship is still sinking. Research is the foundation for planning communications strategy, goals, objectives, and tactics with respect to desired organizational goals and communications goals to build organizational value. Measurement and evaluation is simply using research methods for a specific purpose. When I go to my doctor every year, he measures my blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL/LDL ratio, triglycerides and so forth. These measurements become meaningful when he compares and evaluates my results in the context of my results from previous years and normal measurements for healthy men my age. This allows my doctor to prescribe a healthy living plan for me, including diet, exercise, and medications to manage slightly elevated blood pressure and cholesterol. Likewise, the public relations function and public relations programs require research, measurement, evaluation, and prescription (insights, if you prefer) to guide planning, implementation, and resource allocation in the context of the goals and objectives of the communications function and public relations programs.
cc.de: What have been the most important insights and turning points in your professional work on the topic?
Geddes: Unfortunately, many insights are negative. The realization that too much public relations activity is based on unverified assumptions about cause and effect. An excessive investment on measuring outputs and insufficient attention to setting measurable objectives, and measuring desired outcomes of communications programs. My experience is that too much measurement is bolted on to a program in order to show success, rather than built in to the program. This has been exacerbated by the growth of the social media domain, where so much can be quantified but so few have the research skills necessary to think about what should be measured. There is an extreme willingness to measure programs that are destined to succeed, but a fear of measuring in risky situations. On the positive side is the discovery that there are techniques capable of linking public relations to outcomes in a statistically rigorous way. We need more of this.
cc.de: International research constantly shows large gaps between the importance and implementation of measurement practices. Many complain about this, but nothing seems to change. Do you think there are any ways out of this dilemma?
Geddes: First, if I were the CEO of a public relations agency, I would expect my account and practice group leaders, office general managers, and all senior leaders to infuse research, measurement, and evaluation into their accounts to let client organizations know that the agency has a point of view on research. This would be part of their annual performance reviews. Not every client will invest budgets in research, but the agencies must take steps to lay out the research that could and should be done. Second, if I were CCO of an organization, I would ask my senior staff the same question; it would be part of their annual performance reviews. Budgets may not permit implementation of the research and measurement, but they should be thinking about this constantly. They should expect their agencies to be constantly thinking about research, measurement, and evaluation. This should be part of their annual agency reviews.
cc.de: Do you think it is possible to develop international standards for linking communication to organizational goals and for evaluating communication activities? What will be advantages and disadvantages, who might profit from such initiatives?
Geddes: To begin, let’s clarify the difference between a “standard” as defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and best practices in evaluating communications programs and in linking communication to organizational goals. According to the ISO, a standard is "a published specification that establishes a common language, and contains a technical specification or other precise criteria and is designed to be used consistently, as a rule, a guideline, or a definition.” Standards enable a common basis of understanding to exist among different parties. This in turn promotes comparability, efficiency, and reliability. Standards are shared and used across the industry. For the public relations practice, comparability is likely the most important benefit. Standards are necessary but not exciting. See an excellent paper by David Michaelson and Don Stacks about standards and best practices. A best practice in evaluating communications programs and in linking communication to organizational goals involves developing an overarching approach to communications measurement. Measurement should be based on communications theory and cognitive psychology. A solid measurement model should span communications outputs, reach, attitudes, understanding, relevance, relationship, advocacy, and behaviors. Finally, they must link public relations to building organizational value. I have provided one example of this kind of framework in a presentation at the 2012 International Public Relations Association conference in Lima. This is where organizations and agencies will innovate and compete; based on their ability to conduct research, develop insights based on measurement and evaluation, and build competitive advantage. Everyone will profit. No exceptions.
cc.de: From your point of view, what is the most important future challenge for PR measurement and evaluation?
In my 2011 presentation accepting the Jack Felton Golden Ruler Award, I delineated the ten most important challenges for public relations research, measurement, and evaluation. These remain challenges today. These challenges are: (1) Promulgating a common theory-based yet practical measurement framework, (2) developing standard metrics and promoting their adoption, (3) applications of better statistical models to public relations research, (4) opening the black boxes by insisting on transparency, (5) driving out the fear that measurement may make my team look bad, (6) emphasizing empiricism rather than just-so stories, (7) education and training of public relations practitioners in how to use research, (8) adoption of a code of research ethics (Shannon Bowen and Don Stacks published a paper on this subject), (9) break down barriers between public relations and related corporate functions, (10) careful use of the term “ROI.” ROI is an accounting and finance term that should only be used in cases where there is a measure of revenues returned and money spent. “Results” are not necessarily ROI. Unfortunately, the term ROI is thrown around loosely. We lose credibility.
cc.de: Thank you for that conversation!
About David Geddes
Dr. David Geddes is founder of Geddes Analytics LLC, business analytics and consulting firm helping organizations to understand and predict how communications drives changes in brand, reputation, critical issues, and risk. Previously, Geddes was vice president of research and development at evolve24, and Senior Vice President and Partner at Fleishman-Hillard. He was 2011-12 chair of the Institute for Public Relations Commission on Measurement and Evaluation, and currently chair of the Coalition for Public Relations Research Standards. Dr. Geddes received a B.A. magna cum laude from Harvard, an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas, a D.E.A. from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (Paris), and a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania.
Readings
back to News
