Monthly: January 2014

Bill Nichols

29 January 2014

Bill Nichols

Maturity and The New PR Measurement Dashboard

Dr. Bill Nichols  – 012 – 29 January 2013

It’s one thing to measure, say, reputation:  quite another to understand and manipulate what influences that metric.  And for all the brouhaha about PR measurement, here there is silence.  More or less.

For some answers,Vital Signs Report (2014) publishes today.  The first in a benchmark series, its insights flow from my recent collaboration with leading tech PR firm, EML Wildfire (1).  Its data is provided by some 80 clients and contacts across the firm’s network in the UK, US and Europe.

Unusually, we assessed the combined impact of in-house and agency teams: i.e. the total PR competency.  From the literature (2), we identified 10 possible factors or influences.  And we concluded by creating a three-part ‘dashboard’ for any PR organisation.

First up – ‘Business Results’ (i.e. leads, sales, profit)

In PR this is the P&L equivalent.  It tracks immediate gains and losses.  Here our top factor is ‘strategic planning’ (SP).  In fact, statistically, it’s the only significant factor that explains a substantial component of ‘Results’ (3).  Overall our sample is most positive about near-term SP.  It commends teams for such aspects as messaging, business strategy alignment, action plans and focused campaigns.

But our respondents are far more cautious further out.   To improve effectiveness, they highlight:  applying evidence consistently, sustaining a mission and pursuing long-term advantage.

And?  Other factors like creativity or techniques?  Actually not much else has any impact. Sobering given all the chat.

Second up – target ‘Reputation’

We see reputation as the ‘balance sheet’ equivalent.  The long-term tracking of net PR assets on the PR dashboard.  Here two factors are in play.

First, and unsurprisingly, ‘relationship orientation’ is the strongest influence on reputation. Attitudinally – the soft stuff – our teams are particularly well-placed.  They are, our sample reports, committed.  They seek authenticity.  They respect stakeholders and they will ‘go the extra mile’.  But they’re less effective at the practical execution of relationship-building.  Such as the analysis of broader perspectives, dynamic tracking of the influencer landscape and (again!) planning.

Second and intriguingly, limited evidence suggests that PR’s prized ability to generate ‘opportunistic’ activity may be a negative influence on reputation.  Short-term results gain: long-term reputational pain.

Third, bonus ball – ‘Maturity’

Our study also introduces a third lead measure: maturity.  It’s the equivalent of cash-flow and it’s a potentially major contribution suggested by the EML Wildfire team.  Maturity is a well-established construct in organisational studies.  Operationally it’s best characterised by that PR jewel: the ability to manage the unexpected and to cope with ambiguity.

To create a clear blueprint for managing maturity, we identified three factors at work.  They are professionalism, engagement and, especially, leadership.  Specifically maturity deepens as PR seniors acquire serious leadership skills and, above all, the confidence to play an active role at the C-Level.

Seeking enlightenment

As business gurus confirm, the act of measurement adds value if – and only if – it helps define and deliver a desirable outcome. Such as, in PR, a behavioural change.  This presupposes we understand the mechanism.  That we know what and how to influence the target.  A little more ‘X’, a little less ‘Y’ – that kind of thing.

But, as the Headmaster of Eton observed recently, “we live in an age of measurement and not of enlightenment.”   How true of PR.  Some cling to the old-time religion of the AVE. Others evangelise Barcelona and the new analytics.   In this ‘promised land’ we measure anything – and everything.

But we have little understanding of the influencing factors. Vital Signs Report (2014) offers our starting point.  Especially that new measure of maturity.  It correlates well with both results and reputation.  It may, we think, be the key moderator – a crucial focus for out study’s next round.  Join us at EML Wildfire to add your inputs to what is planned as a long-term project.

More to follow and, meantime, here’s to enlightenment! And better PR measurement.

-ends-

(1) Special thanks to directors Debby Penton, Lorraine Jenkins and Richard Parker.

(2)  Based on the Nordic three-dimensional service quality model.  So (A) hard/technical = (i) media platform, (ii) measurement and evaluation, (iii) techniques; (B) functional/integrating = (iv) resources/budget, (v) strategic planning, (vi) leadership, (vii) creativity; and (C) people/reputational =  (viii) professionalism, (ix) engagement and (x) relationship orientation.  Each factor successfully tested using Cronbach’s alpha: eight > .7 and two >.6.

(3) Using the 95% confidence level and multiple regression analysis.

 

 

Bill Nichols

4 January 2014

Bill Nichols

011 – January 2014

Bye Bye Scepticism: How and Why CSR Communications Works

If the PR world has an equivalent of the UK’s PPI mis-selling scandal, it is surely the CSR-based communications campaign.   .

Note, this isn’t scepticism about underlying policy or philosophy.  Heavyweights on either side – e.g. Forbes (for) and WSJ (against) – continue to debate.  Companies may, or may not, have a social responsibility.  But, motivation aside, behaviour indicates value.  90% of Fortune 500 companies have explicit CSR objectives.  Half issue specific CSR reports1.  Even two-thirds of crusty CFOs see return, says McKinsey.

But it is serious scepticism about the current value of CSR presentation investment.   All too often CSR campaigns appear worthy and unfocused.  Just-in-case insurance policies, they ‘tick’ the politically- correct compliance ‘box’.  Yet how they work – or to what intended hard business outcome (if any) -remains unclear.

But the research case for the value of strategic planned CSR communication really is building.  And, as Keynes supposedly said, “when the facts change…”  Here’s how.

Evidence and Engagement

The B2C research ‘jury’ is already long-term supportive.  Active CSR promotion drives positive brand and product evaluations.  It also increases both satisfaction and loyalty2.

Now new US research3 is surprisingly positive about B2B.  For corporate comms professionals, it offers a practical evidenced prescription.

As a necessary preliminary, the new work distinguishes two forms of CSR engagement for B2B:

  • Business practice (BP) CSR focuses on e.g. employees and customers: think brand     sponsorship or cause-related product marketing.
  • Philanthropic (PH) CSR addresses e.g. community and third-sector: think community volunteering, social marketing or corporate charitable contributions.

BP CSR and Trust

In the B2B context, BP delivers trust and (ultimately) enhanced loyalty.  The BP toolkit is particularly powerful, the research finds, in three specific scenarios:

  • Compensating high market uncertainty or turbulence
  • Supporting/shifting product perceptions
  • Offsetting infrequent customer engagement and shallow relationships.

How and why does it work?   BP is practical or ‘instrumental.  Grounded in classic social exchange theory, it’s based on competitive ‘survival’ drivers and highlights concrete actions. This is active stakeholder marketing in which something is clearly ‘traded’.  And the acquired strong CSR reputation signals trustworthiness.

PH CSR and Belonging

But now posit situations where trust is necessary but not sufficient.  Where, say:

  • Competitive market intensity is high
  • Or the customer itself reveals a strong CSR orientation.

If your task is to create a strong association – or ‘belongingness’ – then, prompts the research, switch to the PH toolkit.

How and why?  PH activities are soft: expressive, emotional, even ‘warm and fuzzy’.  They  signal the societal or ethical.  Their outcomes are human welfare and goodwill.  They drive measurable customer identification.

So let’s leave philosophy and political correctness to others.  Even this long-term sceptic concurs: as a communications toolkit, it seems to work.  Embrace it!

-ends-

Hope you enjoyed the latest blog.  Thanks for reading and do please comment.  For earlier and regular updates join me on Astrophel for publications and blog or on Linkedin and Twitter.  

(1) Luo and Bhattacharya (2009), Journal of Marketing, 73 (6) 198-213.  (2) Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), Journal of Marketing, 67 (2) 76-88. (3) Homburg, Stierl and Bornemann (2013), Journal of Marketing, 77 (6) 54-72.