This document discusses methods for measuring public relations efforts through integrated competitive analysis of news, advertising, and social media. It emphasizes the importance of measuring PR outputs and outcomes quantitatively and qualitatively against competitors using metrics like share of discussion, voice, and social media. Key aspects include developing scoring systems to assess tone, messages, and prominence of coverage; weighting media costs or impressions; and analyzing how PR impacts advertising effectiveness. Taking an integrated view by comparing messaging and competitive shares across all communication mediums can provide valuable business intelligence to improve forecasting and strategy.

1. Predicting the Next
News Trends: The
Advent of Intelligent
Media Analysis
Angela Jeffrey, APR
Vice President Integrated
Media, VMS
Member, IPR Commission on
PR Measurement & Evaluation

2. The Power of “AND”
 “We are in a world where it is not PR or
advertising, not qualitative or quantitative, not
traditional media or new media, but PR AND
advertising, qualitative AND quantitative,
traditional media AND new media.”
Tom Collinger, Associate Dean of Medill’s
Integrated Marketing Communications
Program
 AND is the future.
 AND PR must lead the way.

3. Where We’re Heading
1. Discovering what you DO Know
 Decisions to Make
 News, Advertising, Social Media, Aggregated
2. Discovering what you Don’t Know
 New Technologies
3. Making Sense of it
 Net Positive & SHARE
 Measuring Competitive News
 Measuring Competitive Advertising
 Measuring Competitive Social Media
 An Integrated View

4. PART ONE:
Discovering What
You DO Know

5. Objectives & Definitions
 It all starts with knowing what you need to measure!
– See: “Using Public Relations Research to Drive Business
Results” by Paine, Draper and Jeffrey.
 Must also have a clear understanding of:
– Outputs – what you put “out there;” the results of
tactical efforts, such as clip counts, audience
impressions, speeches given, etc.
– Outtakes – whether or not anyone heard your message,
understood it, changed their opinion and is considering a
behavioral change.
– Outcomes – bottom-line behavioral change, such as
sales, stock price, employee retention, votes, etc.

6. Five-Step Monitoring & Measurement Process
1. Define audiences of importance to reach those goals, and
prioritize.
2. Define organizational goals.
3. Set PR objectives against prioritized audiences that are
specific and measurable.
4. Determine how you will monitor and measure each, with
what tools, and benchmark.
– Determine who/what to measure against (self or
competitors)
– Choose Output, Outtake and Outcome tools
– Determine how you will link them!
5. Measure continuously, and adjust programs accordingly.

7. Proof of Performance OR Business Intelligence?
 Proof of Performance - Compare against self:
– Over time or against objectives
– Good CYA measure; good for evaluating tactics
– But … business results may not follow
 Business Intelligence - Compare against competitors:
– Correlate to business results (survey scores, leads, sales)
– Not always what you hope to see!
– Actionable, true business intelligence worthy of C-Suite

8. Monitoring Choices
 Comprehensive – must get every clip
– Traditional clipping services plus online to supplement
– Use for proof-of-performance
– Most expensive option
 Sampling – don’t need every clip
– Limit search to key media only, or use combination of
comprehensive and sampling
– Online aggregators are cheapest, but they miss a lot
– Less expensive, so works better for large clip volumes
needed in competitive analysis; national versus vertical
– Statistically, can apply multiplier to sample
 Best Bet: Combination of Both

9. Tools & Services
 Do-it-Yourself or Full-Service?
– Google Searches and Excel Spreadsheets
– Extensive time commitment, but less out-of-pocket
 Tools for Monitoring and/or Analysis
– News: VMS, Vocus, CisionPoint, BurrellesLuce, Dow
Jones Insight, CARMA, Echo
– Social Media: Google and Google Alerts, BlogPulse,
BuzzMetrics, Attensity360, Radian6, Visible Technologies.
– Advertising: Competitrack, Nielsen Monitor-Plus, Kantar
Media, VMS AdSight
– Integrated: DIY Excel, VMS InSight 3 or Vantage
 Pricing
– Prices range dependent on comprehensiveness and
complexity

10. PART TWO:
Discovering What
You Don’t Know

11. Discovering New Issues
 Historically: Market research surveys needed
 New Technologies:
– Web-based focus groups and surveys
– DIY Facebook likes, Twitter searches and retweets;
bookmarks; votes; customer service feedback; internal
surveys. Challenge: must aggregate the data yourself
– Human-powered search – services work by sending a text
message and getting a response from a human “guides.”

12. New Automated Technologies
 New technologies (i.e. Autonomy) that enable you to bring in a
fire-hose of data and instantaneously:
– Cluster into visual representations
– Identify issues and interrelationships
– “Conceptual Search” to find more of the ‘same’ types of
ideas.
 Predicting news tomorrow!
– What new trends am I seeing? Insights?
– What can/should I do done differently?
– Add terms into existing monitoring, and the cycle repeats.

13. Instant Discovery News & Social

14. Instant Discovery Advertising

15. Clustering Concepts & Connections

16. Clustering by Sentiment

17. Clustering Over Time

18. Conceptual – “More Like This”

19. Proactive Discovery Might Have …

20. … Prevented this with Some Speaker Training

21. PART THREE:
Making Sense of it!

22. Importance of Competitive Analysis
 Hundreds of studies have shown:
– Measuring your own media footprint in isolation doesn’t
always reveal correlations to outcomes …Measuring
competitively almost always does!
 “Share of Discussion, Voice or Social Media” - is “the
quantity and quality of your footprint compared to that of
your competitors.”
 Quantity and Quality matter for all media types!
 At a minimum, NET POSITIVE!
– “Exploring the Link between SHARE of Media Coverage
and Business Outcomes,” www.instituteforpr.org.

23. 23
Correlation to Customer Preference Survey (thin blue line) is
low without competitive analysis, but soars to .97 through
Share of Discussion.

24. Measuring Competitive
NEWS (Unpaid Media)

25. Qualitative Scoring of Clips
 Tone – does the story leave you more positively inclined
toward the company?
 Messages Communicated – how well are your
company’s key messages coming through versus those
of your competitors? (Broad-bucket these for
comparison);
 Prominence – How high-up in the article is you
company mentioned? Headline? Illustration? First 20%?
Bottom 80%?
 Dominance – How often is your brand mentioned? Is it
exclusive, dominant, average or minor?
Terms from KDPaine’s Measuring Public Relationships

26. Qualitative Scoring of Clips
 Audience Reached – define Tier 1 and Tier 2 media lists in
advance, according to likely reach; what % of coverage was
in those media sources?
 Sources Mentioned – company spokespeople? Industry
analysts? Customers? User groups? Who is quoted and what
do they say?
 Article Type – Feature? Industry overview? Product review?
Blurb?
 Call to Action – How many articles include a specific URL,
800# or other call-to-action?
Terms from KDPaine’s Measuring Public Relationships

27. Case Study - Are Qualitatives Enough?
IPR Jack Felton Golden Ruler Award – Porter Novelli/VMS
– correlations with no key message r = .51. With key
messages r = .97. BUT – only TWO of the six messages
were moving the needle!

28. Quantitative Scoring of Clips
 To measure Quantity, which score is best?
– Clip Counts
– Audience Impressions
– Media Costs
• Major studies: Media Costs improve correlations up to
70% over Clip Counts and 32% over Impressions
– Captures reputation, size and prominence.
– “A New Paradigm: Weighted Media Costs” from
IPR Commission – www.instituteforpr.org
• BUT – Media Costs are confused with AVE, which is
condemned as a measure of PR Value - “Barcelona
Principles,” www.instituteforpr.org, so Impressions
preferred.

29. Qualitative & Quantitative Indices
 A single number comprising both quantitative and
qualitative clip scores work well
 “Media indices” correlate better with outcomes
 Key is consistency for competitive analysis
 Example: SCORECARD (Ketchum ROI Lab)

30. Ketchum ROI Lab: Weighting for Quality
 Source Tier 1 or 2: 0-20 points
 Tone: -15 to +15 points
 Message 1: 0-10 points
 Message 2: 0-10 points
 Message 3: 0-10 points
 Third party endorsement: 0-15 points
 Headline, Photo: 0-20 points
 TOTAL possible: 100 points
 Theory behind it: 100 points would be a perfect story, so lower
scores mean stories are less effective.
 Multiply percentage of 100 points against Impressions or use
“as is” for each clip.

31. Scoring “Net Positive” and “SoD”
 If using Scorecard, Index works well for Share of Discussion.
 If not, here’s a simple formula:
– Capture competitive news coverage
– Score Impressions and Tone
– Add your Positive and Neutral together, and then subtract out
your Negative.
– Result is: Net Favorable Impressions
 Divide each company’s Net Favorable by the total of all to get
your Share.

32. Example: Share of Discussion Calculations
Clients Total
Impr.
Positive
Plus
Neutral
Impr.
Negative
Impr.
Net
Positive
Impr.
Share of
Discussion
Firm A 140,000 100,000 (40,000) 60,000 44.4%
Firm B 250,000 150,000 (100,000) 50,000 37.0%
Firm C 75,000 50,000 (25,000) 25,000 18.5%
TOTALS: 465,000 300,000 (165,000) 135,000 100%
32

33. Share of Discussion against Survey Scores
Plot sales, leads, web hits or survey scores on a chart with
some time-lag behind SoD that reflects your sales cycle.

34. Easy Correlations Calculation!
 Simple correlations can be pulled out of Excel using one of two
commands: =CORREL or =PEARSON
 Setup an Excel spreadsheet with your data tables where the first row
is Share of Discussion, and the second is your business result.
A B C D E F G
1
Time
Period
Period
1
Period
2
Period
3
Period
4
Period
5
Period
6
2 SoD % 10.5 14.5 19.5 19.0 10.0 50.0
3 Leads 4 6 45 50 30 15
 In an empty cell, enter the cell numbers of the starting and ending
values in each row like this:
=Correl(B2:G2,B3:G3)
 Hit enter … and it returns a correlation of r = .547.

35. Measuring Competitive
ADVERTISING

36. Importance of Competitive Analysis
 Advertising must also do “competitive share” to correlate well
to outcomes:
• Share of Voice is common practice
• Can use media spend or impressions in same
formula as Share of Discussion with correlations to
outcomes …
 BUT - Ad folks aren’t any smarter than we are about
measurement!
• No factor for quality!
• Are all ads equal?

37. One Approach: AdBenchmarkIndeX from ABX
 3 million people viewing and scoring TV, radio, print and
internet ads
 Answering internet questionnaire
 The Ad Index is a combination of 14 key variables, several of
which include:
– remembering the advertiser
– presence of a benefit
– presence of any call to action
– ability of ad to improve opinion
 Will send you variables if desired!

38. Examples of High and Low Scoring TV Ads
Score = Score =

39. Examples of High and Low Scoring TV Ads
Score = Score =

40. An “effective”
ad scores at
100+. Huge
disparity in
effectiveness
scores!
Enormous Variation in Creative!

41. How To Weight Advertising Impressions
 To estimate the impact of your advertising creative, create a
survey with a scale:
– An average ad worth the spend = 100 (100%)
– A superb ad would be about 150%
– A relatively poor ad would be 50%.
– You can use values in between.
 Take total impressions earned for your ad
 Multiply your impressions times your creative index percentage.
 Result = weighted impressions for advertising
– Example:
• Impressions = 100,000
• Creative Score = 82
• Effective Impressions = 82,000

42. Measuring Competitive
SOCIAL MEDIA

43. Several New Points from AMEC & IPR
 SHARE is critical here, too!
 Measuring Quantatively:
– Basic data is easy to measure, but not terribly valuable:
• Number of: blog/video/content posts, Facebook posts,
Tweets, Facebook likes, Twitter followers, comments,
linkbacks, likes, retweets, unique visits/visitors, time
spent on site/content …
 Source: Post-Barcelona Social Media Task Force, AMEC;
www.instituteforpr.org
 Great book – Social Media Metrics by Jim Sterne

44. Several New Points from AMEC & IPR
 Measuring Qualitatively:
– % accuracy/consistency of messaging
– % favorable (positive, negative, neutral, mixed)
– % of endorsement/opinion/advocacy/call to action
– % of dislikes/badvocates
– % change in volume
– % share of conversation (overall or by topic)
– Trend analysis over time … and more
 Source: Post-Barcelona Social Media Task Force, AMEC;
www.instituteforpr.org

45. At a Minimum …
 For comparing cross-media, use:
– Percentage Share of Net Positive Posts until better
metrics are defined
– Can correlate to outcomes (like Share of
Discussion)
– Can at least see directional relevance of Social
Media to News and Advertising

46. An Integrated View!

47. Royal Caribbean Ad

48. Royal Caribbean News Story

51. Sales forecast (blue line) was off by 9.5% against actual (pink line). Green
line shows how accurate the forecast would have been w/News and Social
Media!

52. Impact of News and SM on Advertising!
 News and Social Media changes ad effectiveness all the
time, not only in extreme cases.
 10-30% swing in how people feel about your brand over
time.
 Know the potential impact PR is having, up or down.
– Budget increases, more power in crisis situations
 Taking an “integrated look is essential”
– Won’t see these effects if you’re not looking for them
 Quick calculation to quantify this impact!

53. The Negative Effect of News
 IF Taco Bell’s budget was $30 million for Gordita Crunch
campaign:
– Ads (pretest) scored 100; campaign spend was $30 million.
 Crisis happens!
– Ads (post-test) now score at 20, (20% of the original score)
– the $30 million budget now has an impact only $6 million!
 Marketing mix model with $6 million came close to matching
actual customer counts and revenues!
 Bottom line: News and social media reduced impact of the
budget by $24 million!

54. DIY: Positive Impact of News
 Have ad pre-testing service test ad effectiveness in a
neutral news environment with a scoring system where
100 = an “effective” ad.
– Example: your ad scores at 100 and budget is $10
million
 Now conduct your PR campaign!
 Have ad testing service repeat the ad effectiveness
tests after your campaign:
– Example: now the ad scores at 110 (10% higher!)
 If the marketing spend is $10 million, PR has just
added 10% more effectiveness to that campaign, or
produced a real value of $1 million!

55. Integration Yields New Star!

56. DIY: Measuring Message Synergy!
 Step One:
– News: Net Positive Share of Discussion by
Impressions and Message
– Advertising: Share of Voice by Impressions
and Message (assuming creative is good)
– Social Media: Net Positive Share of Social by
Post and Message.
 Pull Excel chart comparing Share (of 100%) for
each media type by Message
 Is there message consistency and symmetry?

57. Comparing Messaging across All Mediums
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cancer Cardiology Endocrine Neurology Orthopedics Pediatrics Research
Seattle Children's SoD
Seattle Children's SoV
Seattle Children's SoS
8%
18%
25% 23%
62%
15%
27%
Seattle Children's is in Top 3 competitively in
11 of 17 categories based on integrated communications

58. For White Papers or More Information
 The New Found Impact of PR on Advertising,”
A VMS paper by Gary Getto, VP Integrated Media Research, VMS
 “A New Paradigm for Media Analysis: Media Cost Weighting,” an
IPR Commission paper by Angela Jeffrey, Dr. Brad Rawlins and Bruce
Jeffries-Fox.
 “Using Public Relations Research to Drive Business Results” an
IPR Commission paper by Angela Jeffrey, Katie Paine, Pauline Draper
 “Exploring the Link between SHARE of Media Coverage Volume
and Business Outcomes,” an IPR Commission paper by Angela
Jeffrey, Dr. David Michaelson and Dr. Don Stacks.
 Email ajeffrey@vmsinfo.com or Call 1-214-722-9006