Download the Full Webinar Here (64.1M, .wmv file)

Watch the Full Webinar on YouTube (Opens a New Window)

Download the Powerpoint Deck (2.12 MB, .ppt file)

Download the PDF Deck (0.98 MB, .pdf file)

Dr. Macnamara led us through several of his key concepts of measurement standards including engagement, relevant influence, and impact/value. Throughout the presentation he stressed that we're not just measuring our output but increasingly we've got to understand the engagement influence and impact of business outcomes. 

Whether you want a copy of webinar, missed viewing it yesterday or would like to share it with your colleagues, feel free to download Dr. Macnamara's webinar by using the link above. The webinar includes the full presentation, including the powerpoint deck and Dr. Macnamara's audio commentary. 

If you have comments about the webinar and/or additional questions about something in the presentation, leave us on in the comments section below or tweet us at @CARMA_Tweets or Dr. Macnamara at @jimmacnamara. 

Breaking it out further by organization type, the only variation we see is that non-profits need to work a little harder on designating ‘for whom.’

Bottom line: it’s time for all practitioners to take some risks with proper objective-setting!  Move as far as you can toward specificity.  You can decrease the risk that comes with specificity by matching objectives to baselines.  And, you can educate clients and management as to the importance of learning from your objectives even if they are not completely hit.

As for those of us in measurement services, we need to help our clients think through the objective-setting process before supplying them with reports and data that might be meaningless. 

We’ll discuss other survey findings over the coming weeks, and be sure to see, “Breaking Down the Results of Our Joint Measurement Survey With PRNews” by our own Chris Scully. 

By Chris Scully, Vice President, Research 

In case you missed it, CARMA’s joint survey with PRNews was published yesterday (Thanks to PRNews for the link). Its questions were organized around understanding how far the PR industry has come in adopting the Barcelona Principles of Media Measurement.  It has some fascinating results, and I recommend it to all for a quick look.

In addition to questions related to the Barcelona Principles, we asked how well people understood the media measurement metrics offered by their current measurement provider. Overall, 28 percent of respondents said they were either “somewhat” confused (25 percent) or “utterly” confused (3 percent).  Another 14 percent said they “didn’t know”. Sixty-one percent said they understood them. 

I think the result of nearly 30 percent of people not understanding their media measurement program’s metrics says two things: 

1. Those of us on the measurement side, like us at CARMA, need to do a better job of explaining what our measures show and what their results mean, and then place those results in context; and
2. Many end users of media measurement services are still a little intimidated by math.

Now, item #2 is supposition on my part, but based on my anecdotal experiences, I think many people who enter into the field of public relations do so in part because they’re averse to math and science.  As such, they’re predisposed to being wary of numbers and statistics, which most measurement providers spit out in large amounts.  And that causes them to be confused by their media measurement metrics.

I certainly can understand where such people are coming from, as working on matters about which one is not comfortable can be intimidating.  But, I have one simple tip that will help those confused by media measurement metrics start the process of better understanding the results of their media measurement programs. 

The most important thing to understand is that each metric is a means to answer a specific question about your organization’s media coverage.  If you understand what question the metric is answering, then you essentially understand the metric itself. 

For example, share of voice metrics answer the question of “How much coverage did we receive relative to the amount of coverage our key competitors or peers received?”  Message penetration metrics answer the question of “What percentage of our coverage featured one or more key message?” 

Moreover, in my experience, the results for most metrics are straightforward as well. The majority of results for the metrics proffered by media measurement providers are either article counts (how many articles met a certain criteria) or percentages (of all clips on the organization, what percentage of them met a certain criteria).  Both these types of results are elementary to understand and pose no reason for PR practitioners to be intimidated.

Now, the results for some metrics don’t quite fit into these two buckets, and those results tend to be a little more complicated. For example, impact metrics aren’t really article counts or percentages. However, if you revert to focusing on understanding what the metric is measuring, you’ll have a good foundation to start understanding what the result means.  

By John Scappini, Media Analyst

The Quantified Self is a movement that uses technology to collect data on various aspects of a person’s life—calories consumed, steps walked, sleep states, blood oxygen levels. This information is harvested through various devices and apps and systems, and analyzed, to be used to improve one’s daily functioning. An article on Time.com wrote about the presence of Quantified Self-based companies at South By Southwest, and described one system, BodyMedia: 

“Their…product is a clinically-validated armband that gathers physiological information from three small, sensors underneath the armband. The sensors start collecting a flood of  5,000 data points per minute, including measurements of heat flux (the rate at which heat is dissipating from the body), motion, skin temperature and the skin’s electrical conductivity, which are then converted into more meaningful measurements such as the number of calories burned, sleep quality and how efficient the body is overall in performing its metabolic duties.”

While reading the Time article, and thinking about the capabilities of these fantastic new devices, I couldn’t help but wonder about the unintended consequences of such products. Sure, a fancy new PowerMaster 9000 Portable Life Interface (I’m calling dibs on that name) can track and monitor and crunch the data, and spit out some sort of health conclusion for you…but how much should you trust that? At the end of the day, should you trust an automated system over, say, your doctor? A nutritionist? Your personal trainer? Will these systems be able to comprehend all the complexities of your situation and tailor their results specifically to your socio-economic condition while also understanding your health history? Photo by jfcherry via Flickr

The same principle applies for automated monitoring systems within media analysis. Anyone can get a program to compile and crunch numbers, but the end result is going to be the same: naked numbers, completely devoid of context. The human element, which CARMA prides itself on, is the doctor for those businesses looking to get the most out of their Quantified Self data. The human element is the link between raw data and client needs and priorities, and can provide unique solutions and results for each individual client, rather than a catch-all automated system

There is nothing wrong with compiling data—your blood pressure, metabolic rate, and average calories burned per day are all good things to know. However, if you want to make any serious changes to your life—like starting a diet or new exercise plan—you’d want to consult with your doctor, rather than blindly using a computer system that only knows you as a set of numbers and data points. Measurement companies and data analysts have similar consulting functions, interpreting compiled data points to give you a complete picture of the health of your campaign. Just like the human body, a campaign is a constantly-changing entity, chock full of daily functions that need interpretation from a professional. So let us act as your measurement consultants and be your doctors for media analysis! 

By Anders Klein, Senior Analyst

The power and influence of social media to begin a national conversation has again been exhibited this past week. This most recent example, involving one of America’s most iconic food products, showcases the evolving media landscape and highlights the importance of companies identifying, managing, and understanding the social media conversation surrounding their brands.

On Tuesday March 5, two North Carolina food bloggers started a petition on Change.org asking Kraft Foods to stop using artificial dyes in its Macaroni & Cheese product sold in the United States. In the hours following the bloggers’ appeal, the petition attracted attention on a handful of other lesser-known blogs and online media including the Mother Nature Network. However, the story quickly spread to numerous mainstream media outlets, including USA Today, Chicago Tribune, national broadcast networks including ABC and NBC. The rapid circulation of this story forced a response Kraft who focused on its commitment to food safety in a press release, an unsatisfactory response to some observers.
Photo by SliceOfChic via Flickr

What makes this story more interesting is that approximately two years ago, a similar campaign was launched on Change.org petitioning Kraft to halt the use of artificial dyes in its foods.  That endeavor seemingly failed to capture significant attention in either the social media or traditional/mainstream press. In contrast, this new campaign sparking a national media conversation, and impassioning over 220,000 people to sign the petition.

What was different about this campaign?

The media environment today provides a much richer platform for like-minded stakeholders to connect over important issues. This is especially true with media conversations, social conversations, and corporate conversations becoming increasingly intertwined and multidirectional. Is it that the current web of media facilitated the elevation of this petition started by two food bloggers? Is it that these two bloggers acted as hubs, as Malcolm Gladwell talks about in the Tipping Point? Or perhaps the message was just ripe given the culture today?

As media analysts, we have observed the increasing frequency with which consumer-generated campaigns have created PR emergencies for companies. This most recent episode provides yet another example of the rapidly evolving media environment.  We are well beyond the days of one-directional communications where companies talked at consumers, as the ways in which consumers, stakeholders, and companies interact continues to grow.  As the communications environment continues to evolve even further, companies are best served by carefully monitoring and understanding media conversations about their brands in order to quickly and effectively manage these unexpected incidents.