【Good News】For those wanting to break free from the shackles of advertising equivalency ~ The courage to take a step forward with PR KPIs ~

Now, about two months into the new fiscal year, as people move to new departments or tackle new goals, the perennial KPI problem keeps surfacing—especially among PR professionals. You may recall my previous column, "Advertising Equivalents? That's a No-Go!!" (see Shinmeikai "Strategic PR" #21: The moment you ask for advertising equivalents, you (PR) are already dead! (Angry) "). It seems this piece resonated strongly with many of you. While it took quite some time to follow up, I'm finally ready to share the next step with you all today. It's titled: "New KPIs for PR! Advertising Equivalents? No Way, Absolutely Not!" Alright, let's dive in!

Speaking Out Against Advertising Equivalents! Have You Heard of the "Barcelona Principles"?

Now then, many of you might be wondering, "What on earth is the 'Barcelona Principles'?" Well, this is an agreement reached by the PR industry across 33 countries. Plus, it evolved into "2.0" in 2015, so everyone involved should definitely remember it! (Huh? That phrase sounds familiar...) For details, please refer to the information below.

Barcelona Principles 2.0: "Seven Principles"
1. Setting goals and measuring effectiveness are crucial for communication and PR.
2. Measuring communication outcomes is recommended over merely measuring outputs.
3. The impact on organizational performance is measurable and should be measured whenever possible.
4. Both quantity and quality should be measured and evaluated.
5. Advertising equivalency value is not the value of communication.
6. Social media, along with other media channels, is measurable and should be measured.
7. Measurement and evaluation should be transparent, consistent, and effective.

Actually, the key change from Version 1.0 to 2.0, released as the first installment, is that this framework has been applied to the broader category of "communication" rather than just the PR/public relations domain. It really drives home that PR has reached a stage where it must operate as a higher-level concept, encompassing all communication strategies, including advertising. Personally, I'm also struck by the emphasis on properly measuring social media effectiveness. Given its rising prominence, the language feels more earnest now.

It feels like we're being confronted with: "Seriously, with social media rising this much and having such influence, we absolutely have to incorporate it properly into our performance metrics!" Indeed, given our current temperature, this is an unavoidable point. Yeah, yeah, exactly, you're absolutely right, you bastard. I know that already. But how the hell are we supposed to evaluate this together? Even if we try to convert it to advertising equivalents or lump it in with other mass media, it's a bit too quirky. Plus, social media isn't something you can buy with money, so that's another headache. And we've been told advertising equivalents are no good anyway.

Right, right, you're right. I think most opinions boil down to this point. We've certainly wrestled with it too. But since various principles have been declared as "the standard," we first need to find a way to align with them. So, the first step is figuring out how to put mass media and social media on the same playing field. We use "reach" – a measure of information exposure – as the benchmark to calculate the number of people each platform reaches.

However, social media isn't just about the initial contact. It often has a high share execution rate afterward and significantly influences reactions—that is, concrete actions (attitude change). So, we apply slight weighting factors to account for these values. One potentially misleading metric is "impressions," which represents the number of times a web ad is displayed. While users may visit the site, it's unclear whether they actually view the content. In contrast, "reach" indicates that social media users have actively reacted—by liking, sharing, etc.—so we can infer that information contact extends to understanding the content itself.

Of course, some may view information reach in mass media as equivalent to "impressions." But considering the difference between superficial exposure from casual web browsing versus proactive actions like tuning into a channel or purchasing a newspaper/magazine, it seems fair to view social media as a more active form of information engagement. Naturally, these aren't definitive answers, and various perspectives exist. Yet, given the rapid rise in social media's influence recently, I believe there's significant value in utilizing even such provisional approaches.

"Even an unjust law is still a law." Yet, the departure from advertising equivalency has begun.

In reality, PR professionals reporting activity results using advertising equivalency may be waiting for new KPIs to emerge someday. Yet, with no groundbreaking metrics appearing, they likely find themselves continuing to use advertising equivalency while harboring doubts. However, their cries from the heart are gradually growing louder. This trend is evident in survey results published in the January issue of the industry journal 'Public Relations Conference'. When asked about methods for measuring effectiveness, PR professionals ranked mass media exposure, online media exposure, and advertising equivalency as the top three metrics. Yet, there are growing complaints that these metrics don't truly capture the essence of their work.

Furthermore, much like the Barcelona Principles, there appears to be a growing emphasis on outcomes—measurable results in actual activities—such as direct links to sales figures. (For detailed survey results, please refer to the February issue of 'Public Relations Conference'!)

Furthermore, in the "PR Capability Survey" conducted by our "Corporate PR Strategy Institute," responses indicating a desire to see impacts not only on "sales of relevant products/services" but also on "company website traffic," "rankings in various corporate surveys," "social media engagement," and "media inquiries (number and content)" have surged significantly since the previous survey. This suggests that the awareness of PR activities focused on concrete outcomes—such as "Real Results" and "Meaningful Results," concepts emphasized for years in the PR category at Cannes Lions—has likely become quite widespread.

Ultimately, "how reputation was enhanced" is crucial

So far, we've discussed performance metrics for PR and advertising, each as distinct information dissemination channels. While improvement is evident, a lingering concern remains: might we still be stuck viewing these as isolated campaigns, asking only "Was this PR initiative effective?"

This brings us back to the fundamental question: what should truly be the ultimate goal? This also connects back to the starting point emphasized at the beginning of the Barcelona Principles: "Goal setting and effectiveness measurement are crucial." Even if we run large-scale campaigns several times a year, is it sufficient to evaluate them solely as individual, standalone initiatives? Furthermore, is it acceptable for different teams to independently evaluate these campaigns using their own individual performance metrics? As a company, we must evaluate these campaigns comprehensively and continuously within a unified team sharing a common perspective. Through this PDCA cycle, we should then advance toward formulating PR strategies that build on past efforts and further drive the improvement of corporate reputation targeted in annual or mid-term plans.

However, the current reality is that attention tends to focus on maximizing exposure metrics in the moment, while evaluation from the perspective of "engagement built through mid-to-long-term accumulation" is often neglected. When personnel are forced into a position where they must produce short-term results at all costs, activities tend to become overly myopic. It is the management level that must maintain a proper perspective on this, and the necessary benchmark for their judgment is each activity's "contribution to corporate reputation."

Perhaps we must now make a significant pivot toward measuring the effectiveness of various communication activities, including PR, from this broader, management-oriented perspective. Huh? You ask where we should aim for?

By the way, my current top recommendation is this! Check it out!
http://www.dentsu-pr.co.jp/servicemenu/survey/reputation-matrix.html

※ The "Barcelona Principles" refer to

At the The Barcelona Declaration of Measurement Principles was announced at the 2nd European Summit on Measurement in Barcelona, Spain, in June 2010. It was presented by AMEC (International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication), an international organization for media and communication research and evaluation headquartered in the UK, and IPR (The Institute for Public Relations), a US-based non-profit public relations research organization.

International PR industry awards also evaluate achievements based on these "Barcelona Principles" during their judging processes. Furthermore, the content was updated and released as the "Barcelona Principles 2.0" in September 2015.