Seat at the Table

What is more likely to capture the attention of senior management: 1) a statistically significant customer base survey said the new test advertisements left them with negative feelings about the company but also showed what messaging would get customers more engaged; or 2) recommendations based on what the company feels are strong messages that highlight the company’s strength.

Likewise, what measurements of success is more likely to capture management’s attention: 1) a statistically significant audience survey that shows how new messaging and types of outreach impacted a company’s reputation; 2) share of voice, ad equivalency and other metrics that focus on quality and quantity, but don’t actually talk to the end audience.

Instead of focusing our bottom line PR measurements on metrics like share of voice, why don’t more corporate communications and marketing PR teams engage in this type of audience research?  While share of voice and similar measurements are important, they measure the tactical success (how much ink did we generate) and not the strategic (what was the reputation impact).  I’m not going to guess at the answer but I will make some points as to why this type of research should be standard practice.

The a core counseling role of public relations teams should be to determine and forecast the impact a management, product and marketing activity may impact a companies reputation.   While an opinion should be educated and valued, an opinion backed up by hard research is hard to ignore.  Owning this type of research means being able to accurately represent how core consituencies will react to companies move.  This puts companies in a better position to make marketing, business and communications adjustments…all based on research conducted by the communications team.

For example, let’s say a company restructured its corporate communications function to be more research and senior counseling centric.  It might look like the following:

1. Corporate communications conducts monthly surveys to determine how audiences are viewing the company, the impact of company moves, and message testing for potential near future company moves.
2. Research is presented to management team along with businessI recommendations on how to address any negative perceptions or enhance positive receptions.  This may include changes to how products are rolled out, adjustements to how senior executives commnicate to media or new messaging for advertising and media outreach compaigns.
3. Following research then captures these changes and shows the bottom line impact on audience perception. 

The last point is the real value of public relations.  When we put recommendations into action and then measure the impact based on audience opinion , it shows that we are doing is having a bottom line impact on how the company is perceived.   Such an approach is far more meaningful to senior executives who, while they might appreciate the fact that the PR team raised share of voice, are much more concerned with how key audiences perceive the company.

Of course, I should take my own medicine.  To that end, I will be conducting a survey of management executives to see what measurement metrics would have the most impact on how they view the importance of treating PR as central counsel (critical to any public business decision).  If you are interested in participating, send me an e-mail at cohen@ fortexgroup.com.