I’ve been reading a lot lately about measuring PR and “proving” ROI. Both were hot topics on the agency and corporate side — but I’m beginning to wonder if people understand that difference between the two (warning: quasi rant coming…)

On the measurement side, I’m surprised at how often the archaic “advertising value” vs. “pr value” comes up. Not to digress, but I stumped as to why any PR person would go along with this measurement. Perhaps if someone were evaluating whether to invest in PR vs. advertising, but even then, PR always loses, no matter how you spin the numbers. First, no one ever pays the rack rate for advertising. So whatever figure you assign to do your math should automatically be cut – sometimes in half. Second, in order to provide a true apples-to-apples comparison, you need to level the playing field. Advertisements are created by companies, so they’re typically 100% on message, focused on the company/product, include no mention of competitors, feature the company in the headline and insert any quality-related criteria we place on editorial. Now, pull out all your PR hits that are also 100% on message, focused solely on your client, etc. IF you have one, include your cost for the year vs. the advertising cost. I guarantee you’ll lose, no matter what numbers you come up with.

On to ROI – here’s another area that I don’t think enough PR people understand. Comparing the costs of PR vs. any other type of marketing doesn’t point to return on investment. Let’s go back to the flawed ad value comparison. Say a company was able to prove that a PR program cost 40% less than an advertising program. So what? It may be cheaper, but that doesn’t mean it’s more effective. It also doesn’t mean any ROI exists.

Now, let’s move on to this blog’s actual topic – measurement and ROI. All PR programs should be measured because if you can’t measure your results, how will you know if you’re succeeding? And measuring PR is actually very easy to do. The challenge is knowing what your objective really is, in order to tailor the measurement. Looking for broad exposure? Count your clips. Trying to build thought leadership? Track how often reporters call for commentary. Building a brand? Validating a product? All of these can be measured across multiple areas, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Spend more time at the beginning of any effort to truly understand the objective and agree on what success is, and the measurement falls in place (monitor and measure as you go).

None of these metrics, mind you, prove ROI. Why? Because in my opinion — and I’m sure some of you will disagree — there are two ways to show ROI. First, is with the money. Most marketing programs are closely tied to to ROI goals. Spend $5k on an ad for $50k in sales. It makes sense, and it’s easy to track. PR, by it’s very nature, doesn’t always lead directly to hard ROI, though many would argue it seeds the market for the rest of marketing. So, we often move on to other ROI qualifiers — increased traffic, shorter sales cycle, more demo requests, etc. There’s literally countless ways to measure the ROI of a PR program because (I think) ROI is really in the eye of the beholder. The challenge, again, is knowing what your objective is as early on as possible. Going for broad market exposure? Increased traffic, increased “buzz” and coverage, incoming calls, etc. — all can measure that. Too busy to devote time to the program? Having someone else do it could be enough ROI.

What do you think? Are measurement and ROI different or the same?