The evaluation of communication measures is often poorly handled in practice.
Therefore, there are various reasons for a continuous assessment, as well as a critical evaluation of all activities. The evaluation
- helps to ensure quality.
- increases transparency in assessment.
- allows claims about ‘What did it take then?’ (ROI).
- gives valuable indications about future activities.
- indicates the areas in which adjustments would be most opportune.
- allows for comparability with equivalent campaigns (advertising equivalent value, AVE).
- and so on…
Bespoke is best
In order to make substantiated statements about the success or failure of a campaign, actual-/target analyses, a clear brief and exact designation of the target group, and key messages are indispensable. Equally decisive is the choice of an adequate evaluation method. If PR is thought of as a sales support measure, then KPIs and economic figures are well suited to measuring the success. Whether the goal is long term image building or increasing name recognition, social sciences survey methods, such as questionnaires and interviews, are effective. Whereas clippings and mouse clicks can be quickly counted and increased, detailed interviews, a media resonance analysis, or focus groups are more time-consuming.
The King’s way is about accuracy. Just as the campaign should be determined by the target group and the desired effect, so should the evaluation measures be chosen accordingly. Only then can you achieve substantiated insights that allow for optimization of the next stages. We therefore advise, at the briefing for PR activities, addressing the topic of success monitoring, defining measurable targets and setting the evaluation method as well as the available budget. This way the evaluation is on the agenda from the beginning and does not occur at the end due to a lack of time or budget.
Read more:
Our service: Product Communication
