Photo credit: -ratamahatta- @ Flickr

Defining metrics that are meaningful and actionable in public relations has received increased attention as of late. With the release of the Barcelona Principles and the denouncing of AVEs, there has been an uptick in discussions focused on outlining standards and finding a replacement for AVEs. I do not expect these conversations to end anytime soon. The reason being, in my opinion, is that there is no “holy grail” when it comes to PR measurement.  Although the search for one would be an endless endeavor, it would not be a futile exercise, as efforts to identify or define the “perfect” metric would help promote new metrics and refine or eliminate existing ones.

“When you aim for perfection, you discover it’s a moving target.”  ~George Fisher

There are two primary reasons for why I believe that the search for the “perfect” metric has no end in sight:

First: Metrics that are meaningful for one campaign or initiative may vary from the next. Metrics that are relevant and important to one industry or organization may vary from another. For example, “thought leadership” metrics are more likely to be included in B2B measurement programs than in B2C programs. Metrics need to be defined based upon established goals that measure the effectiveness of implemented strategies and the objectives they were meant to advance. Metrics need to be defined with an aim on delivering insight that can assist in the creation and refinement of future strategies. Remember, identifying the right questions to effectively conduct the evaluation process precedes the selection of metrics used to answer them, not vice versa. Don Bartholomew, the MetricsMan, astutely captures a relevant viewpoint in his post: Don’t Let the Tool Tail Wag the Measurement Dog.

Second: More often than not, measurement delivers actionable insight by analyzing a combination of metrics. Alone, a metric can shed light on the big picture but when combined with additional metrics, the details begin to become clear and details are what make measurement meaningful, and in turn, actionable.

The baseball analogy is used often and applies here as well. Think of evaluating a hitter. There are a vast amount of statistics that are used to evaluate hitters and relying on a single statistic runs the risk of ignoring important aspects of the game. Even given the wealth of statistics at our disposal, player evaluations often turn to the “intangibles.” Furthermore, the statistics used to evaluate a leadoff hitter will differ from those that are used to evaluate a cleanup hitter or by teams looking to employ a different offensive strategy such as small-ball.

The point here is that PR metrics, much like baseball statistics, are meant to assist and guide our evaluations, not dictate them. The more metrics we have at our fingertips, the more insight we can gain into brand positioning or campaign effectiveness so that future strategies benefit from the lessons of past experiences.

It is my view that meaningful research is born from a combination of creativity and sound methodologies. Removing AVEs from this formula was a step in the right direction and it is my hope that ongoing efforts will focus on denouncing bad practices rather than placing artificial constraints on PR measurement and evaluation. Just as equally important in my view, but receiving far less attention, is the call for transparency from the Barcelona Principles. This means that black box algorithms, such as influencer scores and automated sentiment analysis, should be used with extreme caution, if at all, in measurement as they lack the transparency to be dependable and trustworthy.

“A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”  ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

As the discussions on standards and replacement metrics for the measurement and evaluation of public relations continue, let us remember the follies of AVEs and resist the attraction that such “metrics” offer. The popularity and rampant use of AVEs in PR’s history did not lie in the premise that it delivered meaning and insight. Rather, AVEs were so widely adopted because they offered a single metric that offered the illusion of ROI. Let us not fall into this trap again.