The myth of relationship building as the key measure of PR

One of the myths to emerge in public relations has been the view of relationship-building as the key measure of PR accomplishment. The problem with using relationship-building as the key measure is that it is a process – a means to an end – it doesn’t measure outcomes or results. In the real world, communication professionals are judged by the results they achieve, which are measured in more crucial ways than by the relationships they build or strengthen. At the same time, it is acknowledged that positive and productive relationships are fundamental to successful public relations practice – it’s just that they contribute to outcomes or results rather than being an end in themselves.

This myth started with the 40-page paper written by Dr James Grunig with Dr Linda Hon and colleagues in 1999 titled “Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.” Grunig and Hon maintained that PR is mainly about managing the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders.

Basically, Grunig and colleagues believed that “a growing number of public relations practitioners and scholars have come to believe that the fundamental goal of public relations is to build and then enhance on-going or long-term relationships with an organization’s key constituencies.”

This group made their case this way:

  1. Tools and techniques for measuring and evaluating the relatively short-term outputs and outcomes of specific public relations programs, events and campaigns have existed for quite a number of years. But up until now, measuring the success or failure of long-term relationships stemming, in part from public relations efforts, have not existed.
  2. Outputs are usually the immediate results of a particular PR program or activity. More often than not, they represent what is readily apparent to the eye. They measure how well an organization presents itself to others, the amount of attention or exposure that the organization receives.
  3. Outcomes measure whether target audience groups actually received the messages directed at them … paid attention to them … understood the messages … and retained those messages in any shape or form. They also measure whether the communication materials and messages that were disseminated have resulted in any opinion, attitude and/or behavior changes on the part of those targeted publics to whom the messages were directed.
  4. As important as it can be for an organization to measure PR outputs and outcomes, it is even more important for an organization to measure relationships. This is because for most organizations measuring outputs and outcomes can only give information about the effectiveness of a particular or specific PR program or event that has been undertaken.
  5. In order to answer the much broader question — “How can PR practitioners begin to pinpoint and document for senior management the overall value of public relations to the organization as a whole?” — different tools and techniques are needed.

Unfortunately, these people have never held a position in public relations management, and therefore they didn’t understand the realities of the corporate world. Can you imagine telling your executive committee that the key measure of stakeholder relationships improved by 12%? They would rightly say, “But how does that relate to our bottom line?” The main problem is that relationships are only a means to an end – they are a process and don’t relate to tangible results. Senior managers insist on measuring results.

The reality is that relationship measurement is only one of many measures of PR effectiveness. PR is implemented in multi-faceted ways and therefore needs to be measured in multiple ways.

There may be a correlation, but there is no proof that better relationships generate better business outcomes. More research is needed on this aspect.

Another problem is that it is difficult to measure the value to the organization of public relations programs if the focus is on measuring relationships. Merely being able to demonstrate better relationships with key constituent groups such as employees and customers doesn’t necessarily prove that better business outcomes have been generated by the PR efforts. PR must clearly show how it is supporting the achievement of business outcomes, especially a measurable return on investment in PR.

Measurement of organizational relationships is therefore just another measure of communication; certainly not the most important.

Professor Grunig and his colleagues probably would have had greater success with this approach if they had considered using relationships more as a societal measure than an organizational measure.

Image: Outline of the new online AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework

Kim Harrison

Kim J. Harrison has authored, edited, coordinated, produced and published the material in the articles and ebooks on this website. He brings his experience in professional communication and business management to provide helpful insights to readers around the world. As he has progressed through his wide-ranging career, his roles have included corporate affairs management; PR consulting; authoring many articles, books and ebooks; running a university PR course; and business management. Kim has received several international media relations awards and a website award. He has been quoted in The New York Times and various other news media, and has held elected positions with his State and National PR Institutes.

Content Authenticity Statement. AI is not knowingly used in the writing or editing of any content, including images, in these newsletters, articles or ebooks. If AI-produced content is contained in any published form in future, this will be reported to readers.

Leave a comment

Please read and respect our Comments Policy before engaging.

0 Comments

Further Reading

Share

No products in the cart

Send this to a friend