The Case for "Custom KPIs"!

We've discussed how to utilize KPIs, challenges in measuring them, evaluating owned media effectiveness, and the global landscape. These are actually long-standing topics of debate, and companies, organizations, PR firms, and the PR industry are constantly striving to keep up with these updates.

Ideally, we could present some kind of de facto standard as an industry response. However, given the unique circumstances each company and organization faces, this is not easily achievable. That's why I first recommend putting "self-defined KPIs" into practice.

Is there any value in "self-defined KPIs"?

There is no perfect KPI for current PR activities. How much easier it would be if everyone calculated KPIs using the same standards and could compare them side-by-side. Furthermore, if PR activity goals could be expressed solely in numerical terms, setting objectives would become much simpler. However, a question arises: is it truly sufficient to focus solely on consistently exceeding these set numerical targets?

For example, if we continued PR activities solely to improve this final metric, regardless of the means, would that metric ever reach 100%? I believe it's impossible. Moreover, I think efforts undertaken under the condition of "using any means necessary" lack reproducibility.

Using KPIs to drive the PDCA cycle is fundamentally about continuously improving in a better direction and sustaining the effort, isn't it? I believe the meaning of PDCA lies in understanding your current position, setting the direction and extent of your next step, selecting the optimal means, and then challenging yourself.

Therefore, KPIs don't need absolute values. I believe "constantly surpassing your previous self" could be a perfectly valid metric. I recommend starting by implementing your own company's unique "self-defined KPIs" rather than constantly comparing only to the surrounding environment.

The Lack of Internal Understanding for PR Teams That Troubles PR Leaders

Advertising equivalency gained traction because it clearly demonstrated "improved cost performance in awareness-building communication." Executives were pleased to see that while advertising cost this much to boost recognition, PR exposure and information dissemination meant "we saved this much money!" This was especially true during the post-Lehman Shock era when companies drastically cut SG&A expenses.

Since then, due to its simplicity, the sole focus has been on increasing this advertising equivalent value as the metric. For internal PR staff, this seemed like a highly convincing metric to report upwards, and it also made it easier to appeal to other departments using the common yardstick of "money."

When dealing with corporate executives or other departments like business units, it's easy to fall into this trap of setting KPIs based on internal company dynamics. But do top management truly see real meaning in these numbers? The answer is probably no. This experience likely evolved into the cautionary principles we hear today: "Focus on quality, not just quantity," and "Look at outcomes, not just outputs."

The President Knows It All

One client who skillfully used celebrity-endorsed commercials consistently updated their advertising equivalent value at press conferences. The president was very enthusiastic about these events, often taking the stage himself and winning popularity with media-savvy remarks. I once attended a session reviewing their PR activities, where I praised the company's proactive stance, the president's PR perspective, his skillful messaging, and the success of their exposure.

However, I remember receiving an unexpected response. The president stated, "Our internal reports consistently show these advertising equivalency figures, and I'm grateful you compile these reports so efficiently. Since we're a company that uses a lot of commercials, I suppose they think these numbers are what we value. I praise the PR team to keep their motivation up, but what I look at immediately afterward is only the actual product sales data. How much did this PR campaign actually contribute to that? I want you to reset your activities using new KPIs that can clearly show this contribution to our external stakeholders."

These words struck a chord with me personally. I deeply reflected on how I had become complacent, half-heartedly accepting the status quo because it was a method tolerated and established on the client side. The CEO's evaluation criteria I had assumed, the evaluation methods that had become routine for ease of use, the lack of inherent meaning in the derived numbers – these are precisely the areas each company and organization must grasp their current state and, tailored to their individual circumstances, reset and redesign now.

Incidentally, since then, we've also been gathering insights—separate from media exposure—on how well our press conference messages are understood and valued by consumers. We do this by utilizing social listening and similar tools. Essentially, we check within those conversations how much of what we actually wanted to convey is reaching consumers.

Here, we made an interesting discovery. Despite our intentions being conveyed within a fairly targeted context in the media, when we listened to the actual voices of consumers who saw these reports, we found comments like "I don't really get it" or "They should break it down a bit more." There were parts where the message came across somewhat blurred.

Of course, we immediately addressed this by disseminating clarifying information through social media and owned media channels. However, I believe this direct collection of consumer feedback represents a crucial evaluation metric in today's era. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier in the president's remarks, we must rigorously examine the correlation between information dissemination and sales. Establishing methods for collecting and analyzing data that links PR efforts to sales growth is also an urgent priority.

The most critical factor is whether daily growth can be tangibly felt.

There are no absolute KPIs. What matters is whether each initiative and daily activity shows improvement over the past. This requires self-assessment from various angles—not just numbers, but also skill accumulation, frequency of idea generation, and relationships with other departments.

I believe that steadily improving even one of these areas at a time is actually the most powerful driver for on-the-ground growth and the resulting creation of tangible outcomes. It's okay if there are gaps or oversights; the key is to feel that you or your company is growing, even if it's gradual and upward. After establishing such "self-defined KPIs," it might be a good step to benchmark against PR-savvy companies that your own firm aims to surpass.

Here, I want to reiterate to everyone involved in PR and communications: rather than constantly comparing yourself to others, self-assessment—objectively evaluating your own growth—should come first.

The scope of what PR and communications departments must handle is vast: writing news releases, building media relationships, leveraging owned media, and engaging with other stakeholders. Rest assured, no one has mastered every aspect 100%. Focus instead on steadily building your own and your team's skills and experience, without rushing.

I myself have been in this field for 30 years, yet I still find myself buffeted by the rapid pace of change. However, I believe I remain in this industry precisely because I enjoy this change and, through daily self-reflection and evaluation of each step, feel I'm growing—even if it's just one step, or even half a step. Perfection is boring, after all. Why not approach this work with the same mindset: fail, reflect, grow, and steadily bring it closer to its ideal form?

"Who are KPIs for?" That's right—they're not for the president, nor for other departments. They exist precisely to support management and for your growth. They are "for you."