The PR industry has a fairly long history of dependence on vanity metrics—in part, because they are simple to calculate and easy to understand.
Even now, after years of focus on real measurement, some organisations continue to report these numbers. If these vanity metrics are presented with context and alongside more structured analysis, this is fine. Knowing what your volume numbers are—which is essentially nothing more than a clip count—does have some value.
But a clip count—or volume numbers—alone will not provide insight into how an organisation is achieving business goals. For that type of understanding, there needs to be a more structured, active approach to measurement.
What are vanity metrics?
Vanity metrics at their core are data points that make an organisation either look good or feel good, but do not offer much in the way of guiding strategy or tactics in order to meet business goals.
Clip counts, impressions, AVEs, follows, and in many cases likes and shares, are all different forms of vanity metrics.
Take for example an annual summary of the previous year’s PR activity that reports a 30 percent increase in the number of articles that mention the organisation or business. The same report also includes a dramatic increase in the number of followers on social media channels.
At first glance, these metrics sound good. Stripped of any context, an increase in mentions suggests things are going well.
However, context matters. What if the increase in articles was caused by plant closures and corporate financial difficulties? What if the increase of followers on social media can be traced back to a photo of the CEO meeting a celebrity whilst on vacation?
The point is that high volumes of mainstream media articles or a spike in social content might not be a positive for the company at all—it could instead reflect anything from bad news to simply irrelevant information.
Collecting and reporting vanity metrics should not be presented without additional context. If the volume of mainstream media content has increased, at a minimum sentiment should be layered in as well. If social mentions have increased, examine the point at which something went viral to try and answer the question of “why?”
PR professionals have known for years that they need to provide something more than volume numbers to demonstrate the value of PR.
Communications and Public Relations departments are often viewed as cost centres for businesses—departments that cost money but do not generate profit. This makes them easy targets when cuts come, so there has long been a push to show the value of PR.
Unfortunately, this has led to the creation of questionable metrics, such as ad value equivalencies (AVEs), and even worse practices, such as the implementation of multipliers. The underlying logic behind AVEs is sketchy enough—that an earned media placement that takes up half a page can be said to have the equivalent value of what a firm would pay for a half-page advertisement in the same publication. Multipliers were developed in an attempt to quantify additional value, such as a magazine or newspaper article being passed around to others.
AVEs and multipliers are an attempt to show the financial value of public relations efforts, but these metrics are little more than guesswork using very shaky logic.
Business Goals and Outcomes
Let us get one point out there quickly: linking PR activities to business goals takes work—definitely more work than simply copying the likes/shares/impressions numbers provided by a platform.
This is likely a reason why vanity metrics persist. They are easy to find and easy to report, but they do not provide much information or actionable intelligence.
PR has always been about more than media relations, and developing systems to measure your efforts will depend on the effectiveness of your targeted outreach. Metrics that can show progress towards meeting key business goals such as lead generation, customer acquisition, and brand reputation are more useful than counting clips, and PR shines when it can show its value.
Brand reputation is perhaps the most logical point at which to start, as reputation is a core PR activity. When looking to measure reputational change, first establish a baseline by analysing existing coverage. You may wish to look at overall brand sentiment, and then segment sentiment by target audiences. Then, as your PR programmes progress, you can assess how brand reputation is changing.
Segmenting your audiences before you embark on a reputation-building programme will help you to correct course if necessary. If you find your reputation is improving with an audience that is not important to your brand, but is stagnated with one that is, you will need to adjust your outreach. Analysing your results based on targets, and having a baseline, are steps that allow you to modify your approach.
Customer acquisition can leverage PR efforts too. By using PR to reach new audiences, brands are introduced to potential customers with the authority of third-party voices. Earned media is especially adept at providing this type of validation. Again, segmenting audiences and identifying the right outlets to target will be key to your success.
PR activity can also assist with lead generation. When using a PESO Model© (paid, earned, shared, owned) strategy, lead generation sits comfortably between paid and owned media. Well-written “advertorials” and long-form blog content and white papers can all be used to bolster lead generation activity.
Tracking and monitoring these efforts will do far more to show your organisation how your communications programmes are succeeding than counting clips and likes. But, more importantly, by tying business goals to public relations efforts, it will be clear how PR is working to promote the company in a real and tangible way.
