Thought Leaders Interview: Fraser Likely
This week Fraser Likely joins us for the interview series “Thought Leaders in PR Measurement” question and answer. For 25 years the director of Likely Communication Strategies Ltd. has been involved in PR Measurement. In the interview he explains what, in his opinion, the key factors in managing and measuring communications are and what goes into making the PR department a value.
Communicationcontrolling.de: Mr. Likely, when did you start to deal with questions of PR measurement and evaluation, and why are you especially interested in this topic?
Fraser Likely: When we founded our company over 25 years ago, performance management and measurement was one of our business lines right from the start. The focus of Likely Communication Strategies was on the management of the PR/Communication function and of the PR/Communication department. Thus, managing performance and measuring that performance was a natural service to offer. For instance, we specialized in building performance measurement frameworks. We have never focused on the measurement of a communications per se but on the performance of those who specialize in public relations and communications. Since then, I have been heavily influenced by the work of Jim Grunig, of Jim and his partners in the Excellence Project, of the Swedish Public Relations Association and of course the work you are doing in Germany with the concept of communication controlling. I was first elected to the Institute for Public Relations' International Commission on PR Measurement in 2001 and am now an emeritus member. Being a member is like being at the center of the universe. It's where the big discoveries and new conceptualizations have been made. Seeing the great thinking being done continues to fuels my interest in measurement.
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?
Likely: Here I would differentiate between communication measurement and performance measurement of the PR/Communication function. Communication measurement is only one aspect – albeit an important one – of total PR/Communication function performance measurement. By communication measurement, first I mean the measurement of communication channels and messages or output and outtake measures and secondly the measurement of communication programs or campaigns or outcome measures. The second aspect of PR/Communication function performance measurement is organizational impact measurement. This is measurement of organizational reputation, brand, employee` engagement and of stakeholder relationships at the level of the organization – and the contribution PR/Communication activities and programs had on these factors. Finally, the third measurement aspect is PR/Communication department strategic performance; what was the contribution the PR/Communication function made to the strategic management of the organization or, in other words, the value it has to the organization. I believe measurement at all three levels is essential, and that that measurement should be of both of effectiveness and of cost-effectiveness. While I agree that most of the thinking in recent years has been on communication measurement – particularly around standards – I believe that the results from measuring the other two aspects are ultimately more important to an organization's C-suite.
cc.de: What have been the most important insights and turning points in your professional work on the topic?
Likely: First, I have come to believe that while media measurement – in terms of media coverage measurement or media analysis – needs to be important to the PR/Communication department, and is important to the marketing department, the results of these measurements like reach, impressions or Opportunities To See; tone; share of voice; cost per thousand reached; etc. have little importance to the CEO/Director and Executive Management team as a whole. Vendors of these services seldom, if at all, present their findings directly to management and the Chief Communication Officer (CCO) rarely gets her or his fellow executives excited over the last media analysis dashboard score. While I fully support the serious work being done to agree on common standards in media measurement, ultimately this part of communication measurement is not as important as it once was when mass media measurement was almost the whole ball of wax for the PR/Communication department. In other words, traditional media measurement just isn't as important today - and it should not receive the time, effort and resources devoted to it that it does. Second, I have come to believe that social media measurement should be thought of as a form of formative research not of evaluative research. That is, it should be used as a part of an environmental scanning program, not as an integral part of an evaluation program of communication results. Simply by its very nature, it is impossible to show cause and effect through social media communication channels. In my mind, even with all the wonderful data mining tools and sharp algorithms possible, one will never be able to show causation, from your communication, through everyone's social media channels, to your organizational result. Better to use social media analysis as future-oriented forecasting measure rather than trying to use it as a lagging results measure.
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?
Likely: Yes, most of the research energy in the international PR/Communication measurement space is on traditional media measurement and on social media measurement – and it is being driven by media analysis agencies, communication research agencies and PR agencies. It is in their best interests to push this envelope. Yet, there seems to be a revelation amongst in-house PR/Communications CCOs and their staff members that their organization's senior executives are not interested in this measurement stream – and more importantly, nor should they be. These measures are important to the PR/Communication department, because they show the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of message, channel and program/campaign tactics. Why would the organizations executive management team be interested in tactics?
Years ago, Peter Drucker – Mr. Management Guru, if there is such a title – said that the information executives truly need is: (1) Foundation Information – for instance how the PR/Communication department is resourced? Where does it get its budget from? How does it spend that budget? etc.; (2) Productivity Information – for instance, why do some PR/Communication department products, services or activities have high productivity or why are some low? Are there further efficiencies to be found? Is an operation scalable, with economies of scale, or not? Can we drive more value from the department from the same costs? (3) Competency Information: what are the core competencies of the department? Are lesser important competencies out-sourced or contracted out or are they still in-house? What's out level of innovation? How satisfied are executives with their Account Executives' (AEs) strategic thinking and advice? (4) Resource Allocation Information: How does the department allocate scarce resources? By organizational priorities or not? By business line strategies? What's the mix of specialists vs. generalists? Are there legacy systems still in place to which there isn't a rational current business case? What do overtime costs tell us? and (5) Environmental Information: Does the CCO supply useful intelligence to the strategy formulation process? Does the CCO forewarn when strategies aren't working – because of the intelligence picked up across the organization? Does the CCO contribute to the strategy formation process – reformatting or adapting strategic direction mid course? Does the CCO have an external and internal environmental scanning program in place? Does the CCO, armed with data, play a challenge role? Does the CCO challenge assumptions and an organization's present outlook?
Seems to me information from these five categories would provide executives with information on the operational and strategic capabilities of the department and prove of greater value than media analysis information ever would.
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?
Likely: I wrote a paper last year on return on investment (ROI). First, I argued that the term is used incorrectly in PR/C. Second, I argued that ROI can only be measured at the level of the organization itself - after all investments have been calculated and after a net return for the organization as a whole determined. Thus, there is no such thing as an ROI measure for PR activity, a PR campaign, or a social media channel. Therefore, we should omit that term from our PR/C vocabulary. The term we could use is Cost-Effectiveness ANalysis (CEA). Here we could measure the effectiveness against the cost of the channels and activities we employ. My second point is that the PR/C department contributes a communication campaign or a program to the fulfillment of another function or business line's goals. For example, PR/C supports a HR goal for engaging employees or a Marketing department goal for sales. The PR/C department does not directly support an organizational goal, for example for revenue generation or cost retrenchment. PR/C is a support function for the fulfillment of sub-goals. Therefore, we can link to other functions' goals but not to corporate goals themselves. In summary, we can't link to organizational goals, and ROI is not the way.
cc.de: From your point of view, what is the most important future challenge for
PR measurement and evaluation?
Likely: I believe the most important future challenge is to measure and show the value of the PR/C function within the organization, and not simply the results of its communication activities. Current communication measurement, especially that focused on traditional media analysis or social media analysis does not show - nor can it show - measures around the quality of intelligence provision, strategic thinking, scenario forewarning, go/no go advice, internal client relationships and good management practices. These are the factors that add up to a "value" measure for the PR/C department.
cc.de: Thank you for that conversation!
About Fraiser Likely
Fraser Likely is Partner in and President of Likely Communication Strategies Ltd., an independent consulting and training firm founded 1987. He has worked with hundreds of organizations to improve the strategic management, organization, performance and competencies of their PR/communication function. Fraser is author of several articles on communication measurement, appeared in Strategic Communication Management, PR Journal, the Journal of Corporate Communications and other public relations publications. He has been awarded with several awards for his professional work on Public Relations and holds a MA from Carleton University.
Readings
back to News
