That means looking back – but at what? Counting activity is easy, but what does that tell us about actual impact? Did we really achieve what we set out to do? Do we even know what success looks like, apart from ‘doing things?’
There are three lessons to learn from this:
Let’s break these down.
During the briefing and/or on-boarding process it is critical to have the measurement conversation.
What really matters to the organisation? What are we trying to achieve? When will we know we have won?
These questions might inform strategy (and should), but more importantly, it is the starting point for understanding how to measure the impact of communication efforts.
This puts us in a better position to track the performance of the strategy – not just the tactics.
Make measurement a part of the strategy – not an activity that happens after the fact. Measurement is as much about understanding what lies ahead as it is about what happened in the past.
But what is the best way to frame all of this? Measurement can be complex, after all.
This is hardly ‘new news’ but is often overlooked when it comes to putting good measurement practices into place.
Measurement can be understood in tiers:
This is where we ‘count activity’, relying on easily available metrics. Article count, reach, volume – that kind of thing. It tells a lot about what we did but not much about what we achieved. This can be measured often, sometimes even in real time.
This is where we look at audience metrics. Did the audience take away what we wanted them to take away? Depending on the brief, these metrics will change. Did we see changes in sentiment, opinion, attitudes or beliefs? This can be measured in short bursts.
Now we start looking at behaviour. Did we change the required behaviour, did we cause the desired action to be taken, or did we mobilise the stakeholders we wanted to? Again, the brief will dictate the metric. This needs to be measured over a longer period, giving the communication time to ‘do its job’.
When using this framework, it often helps to ‘work backwards’ – starting with the impact: what is the single biggest goal you are working towards.
This works best when it is clear and single-minded, i.e. ‘we want to change legislation around X’ – then work your back from there. If we want to change legislation around X, which outcomes will help us achieve that? Do we need people to sign a petition? Do we need to mobilise certain stakeholders?
Then again, work back from here…If those outcomes are required – what do we need our audience to take away from the communication, i.e. the outtakes?
Perhaps we need to see changes in sentiment about X. Perhaps we need more people to be aware about X? Then one more time, work back from there.
If those outtakes are required, which outputs will get us there? Articles, mentions, coverage – which quantifiable metrics will push us towards driving up those outtakes.
All organisations are under pressure to do more with less. This means that we have little luxury to only measure what amount to ‘vanity’ metrics that are not directly linked to moving the needle on the organisation’s business goals.
But here is the thing. If we as communicators do not demand absolute clarity about business needs, then we will be doomed to only ever create and drive work that does not deliver on what the business needs.
And the outcome is clear, our budgets will become discretionary as will our function. This is not a “client” or “agency” problem. This is a team problem.
No matter where you sit in the value chain if you do not know why you are doing something you have a crisis on your hands.
In summary – measurement is easy to talk about, but hard to do.
We have become conditioned to generate automated reports and ‘count things’ – but have we really mastered the art of measuring what matters?
To do that – have the conversation upfront and use a reliable framework to ensure the conversation is worthwhile.
