MRP 101: Measuring for success
A long-standing issue in the communications field is that of proving the return on investment for PR initiatives. Since the profession is not and will likely never become scientific, it has always been difficult to quantify our impact. A communicator can rarely stand up at a general meeting and explain that this letter to the editor changed 568 public perceptions thereby saving the client $8500. Don’t even think about justifying a word-of-mouth campaign to the finance department responsible for your budget!
In order to bring our profession to the next level of accountability, the Canadian Public Relations Society and International Association of Business Communicators joined together to showcase a new tool being presented as one of the biggest steps in reaching a level of standardized evaluation of our work – Media Relations Rating Points.
The Media Relations Rating Points system (MRP) is being called a cost-effective, simple measurement that gives professionals apples-to-apples comparisons of Media Relations initiatives. By predetermining customized evaluation criteria (key messages, inclusion of photo, quote from spokesperson – what you want to hear and see in the media coverage) for each campaign, a simple point system then offers a direct rating out of ten to quantify your success. Over 300 users representing over 1300 clients have already incorporated the system into their practices.
What does all this mean? Well, let’s find out by evaluating my own media campaign. In November of 2007, I was a finalist in the CBC Radio Canada Writes competition. [Despite crashing and burning in the first round, I still maintain the rights to hold this over the heads of my peers until the end of time.] As such, I made numerous radio appearances and was interviewed for both local newspapers in Halifax, Nova Scotia. We’ll use my media coverage to illustrate how the MRP system works. Read on!
Evaluating a campaign
To start, let’s pretend that I had already chosen my evaluation criteria to be qualities that would improve my image as a strong professional in the public relations field while showcasing my creative ventures on the side. I would get one point for each of the following criteria if present in any coverage:
• Photo
• Example of writing
• Professional background
• Mention of All Rights Reserved (volunteer-run literary journal)
• Mention of No Ordinary Rollercoaster (personal/professional blog)
The other five points in my rating of ten come from the general tone of the coverage. Five points for positive, three points for neutral (nothing but the facts), and zero points for negative. Here we go!
Article: Local librarian vies for victory on Canada Writes
Outlet: The Saskatoon Star Phoenix
Media Type: Newspaper
Date: November 13, 2007
Reach: 60,000
Tone: Neutral
Photo: NO
Example of writing: NO
Professional background: YES
All Rights Reserved: NO
No Ordinary Rollercoaster: NO
Coverage Rating: 4/10
Article: The Write Time
Outlet: The Chronicle Herald
Media Type: Newspaper
Date: November 20, 2007
Reach: 114,000
Tone: Positive
Photo: YES
Example of writing: YES
Professional background: YES
All Rights Reserved: NO
No Ordinary Rollercoaster: YES
Coverage Rating: 9/10
Article: Local is finalist on CBC contest
Outlet: The Daily News
Media Type: Newspaper
Date: November 20, 2007
Reach: 22,000
Tone: Positive
Photo: YES
Excerpt of writing: NO
Professional background: NO
All Rights Reserved: YES
No Ordinary Rollercoaster: NO
Coverage Rating: 6/10
(I docked a point because in the original print article, I was referred to as Brian Boudreau throughout. Normally, these bonuses and demerits would also be predetermined to isolate misinformation or highly negative coverage.)
Determining your results
The average rating for my media campaign? Based on these three articles and the criteria behind my MRP, I am at 6/10. I could do a similar measurement including the radio coverage for more complete results, but you get the picture.
A six isn't so bad considering I wasn't speaking to the media with any of my criteria in mind, but where I really shine is my cost-per-contact ratio - another suggested method of quantifying media relations initiatives. I reached 196,000 people without spending a dime. Actual campaigns can be broken down by dividing your budget by the total reach resulting in your per person cost.
The web 2.0 factor
If you become a MRP subscriber, the system collects and processes all the data for each piece of coverage that you enter into a template. The system breaks down your audience impressions very accurately based on the precise airtime for television and radio, or the distribution levels for the specific day of your print coverage. That being said, I can’t help but feel that the system is ill equipped for the new world of news.
Online sources are included only if they attract around 3000 unique hits each month. Also, if a print article has been evaluated in its hard copy, the online version readership is ignored to avoid inflating numbers. Both points make sense as far as accuracy is concerned; however the true nature of the web is being lost in the shuffle.
The blogosphere acts as a giant word of mouth chain - one blog can tip off dozens of others as the story or video winds its way across the web. Many of the readers will catch the story before it makes its way to the premier blogs with enough readers to be caught by MRP. Also, as more people are reading their newspapers exclusively online, MRP should be incorporating online subscribers to avoid missing the engaged web-readers whose RSS feeds weed out all but the articles that truly interest them.
MRP offers a solid foundation for campaign evaluation but I hope to see its evolution catch up to that of the changing news environment around us. Visit the MRP website to download a light, six-page PDF outlining how it works as well as the template they use to collect their data at no cost.