Judy Jones, from New York IABC, posted the following as a comment in the Employee Communications Commons, but it seemed appropriate to make it a full-blown post here:

Okay, I’m going to bring up a really dreary subject. (I can hear the virtual groans already.) Let’s talk about measuring Employee Communications or Internal Communications. Here’s the problems I’ve got: There are different productivity measures around the Company, so I can’t seem to consistently link employee communications to productivity. Margin, growth - great metrics but they’re influenced by a number of factors and I’m not successfully selling the case that employee communications can take credit; I have sold the idea that an initiative (based on multiple factors, like training, corporate communications, employee communications, etc.) can take credit. I don’t have a talent management metric to hang my hat on. HELP.

I measure for three reasons:

1. Evaluate what we have done.
2. Inform our plans and implementation.
3. Involve our audience in the decision making.

Evaluation much of the time is focused on our immediate need. Our bosses expect us to demonstrate the value we provide. We count our readership, web counts or media coverage, etc. We conduct survey and focus groups to test the awareness, understanding and support for our messaging. What our bosses would prefer is a clear indicator that we improved business outcomes. This is necessary, but it can distract us from the value we receive from our measurement practices.

Gathering information to inform our decisions is the second reason most communicators conduct research. Our audience, other organizations’ best practices, and our professional colleagues can offer new approaches as to how we will deliver our programs. This data helps us set priorities, goals and understand our constraints.

The third reason communicators conduct research is to involve the audience in decisions making. Corporate polling and organization-wide surveys are examples that can be used to leverage participatory decision-making. What, how and who you ask questions is a powerful form of communicating. As a method of culture change and trust building we have achieved great success focusing on how we involved our audience.

I am excited about the potential for audience involvement. New technologies have offered new possibilities. We now use web surveys, forums and blogs to see how our audience reacts. What innovative ways have you involved your audience?

Truth, Lies and Advertising is a book written by one of the best account planners in the world - Jon Steele, of Goodby, Silverstein and Partners. Jon is credited with the creative research that eventually gave brith to the “Got Milk?” campaign.

A native of Great Britian, Jon is one of those hybrids - a creative guru who is able to think analytically and apply that thinking to connect with the audience mindset.

When milk sales started plummeting, forced to a significantly reduced market share by soft drinks and a variety of juices, the California Milk Board went looking for an agency. Goodby, Silvertein and partners threw their hat in the ring and handed the task of coming up with a winning pitch to Jon Steele, a British trained account planner.

In North America - Jon’s approach was unconventional (to say the least). He didn’t belive in traditional focus groups. He felt that stronger personalities tended to influence the opinion of the group and the results were not the same as what would occur when consumers were left to decide for themselves. So Jon took to conducting focus groups one-on-one - interviewing people in their homes, at the offices - anywhere he could get an audience. The result was pre-measurement research that allowed Goodby, Silverstein and Partners to hit the bull’s eye, every time.

An interesting idea - I wonder how many of us get the message?

I don’t know who said “data without context is trivia” (and I just Googled it and came up empty), but I think that phrase lies at the heart of the PR industry’s hesitation to invest in measurement. There was a minor firestorm recently ignited by a post in Houston PR consultant John Wagner’s blog saying that he thinks much of today’s measurement is meaningless and that “intuition” is an equally valid approach to assessing whether or not a PR campaign is successful. Katie Paine fired back, calling John a dinosaur and a “measurement menace,” and Shel Holtz got his licks in as well (earning “measurement maven” status from Katie).

The problem is that we sometimes view measurement in a vacuum as just a lot of statistics (oh, no, math…) that are an afterthought to a campaign. It becomes just a bunch of data without context, whether it’s ad values (boo, hiss!) or eyeballs reached or cost per impression. Those output numbers only take on meaning and move beyond trivia status when we put them in the context of objectives established at the outset that articulate what we are hoping to achieve — the classic question, “what do we want the audience to understand, believe or do as a result of our communications?” Then we can see how the visibility we generated contributed to the final outcomes, shaping knowledge, opinions and behavior. I once thought that it was only important to measure the final outcomes, but I have come to believe we need to measure both visibility and outcomes in order to demonstrate the value we contribute to the equation.

Has there ever been a quest that is so crucial to the reputation of professional communicators in proving their value to business? It all starts with you - the objectives you define, how they are aligned with business goals, whether they are measurable, meaningful and can be achieved through commuication or whether success relys heavily on business activities that are outside of the communicator’s control.

After more than a decade of judging awards entries, I have found that one consistent weakness among entrants is their inability to judge whether they are using goals, objectives or tactics to establish meaningful measurement of a communication program. Don’t let that be you.

Here’s a formula you can use. SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Tangible or Timely. Simply stated - if you want to measure the impact of your work, you must first learn how to set objectives and then put mechanisms in place that will will measure your progress against those objectives.

Thoughts, ideas or comments are most welcome!

Blogs are great for a lot of things. Archiving resources isn’t one of them. Among new media tools, wikis can fulfill that role. That’s exactly what Constantin Basturea has done with the valuable wiki, The New PR. Among the lists and links collected by The New PR’s many contributors is a section on PR Measurement. So far, links to a variety of articles and blogs have been assembled, although the page — defined as “a discussion space for those interested by PR measurement” — still lists “to be determined” under “How to use this space.”

I see this blog and The New PR’s measurement page as complementary — in fact, I’m going to add this blog to the list of The New PR’s measurement resources. Even in its nascent stage, the wiki offers some terrific links. And, for those of us interested in communication measurement who haven’t yet experienced a wiki, it’s a logical place to get started.