Measuring PR is an act of courage

On April 16th, at the Ara Pacis in Rome, as part of the fifth edition of The PRize, the Italian award dedicated to PR promoted by UNA – Aziende della Comunicazione Unite, three roundtables were held on central themes in the sector: measurement, use of language, and leadership and talent. Our CEO Rossella Rosciano participated as a panelist in the first one, alongside Maria Grazia Persico, Francesca Baldini, Andrea Cornelli and Stefania Romenti, tackling one of the profession’s most uncomfortable conversations: how do you demonstrate the value of PR?

We measure what’s convenient, not what counts

The problem is not new. In 1984, Jim Grunig and Todd Hunt already documented a tendency that has proven hard to uproot: PR professionals prefer to rely on experience rather than build structured measurement systems. Twenty years later, Anne Gregory and Jon Watson observed that the sector had not changed much, in fact, it had found a new way not to change: measuring a great deal, but measuring the wrong things. Reach, impressions, media coverage. Metrics that reassure, but that don’t answer the question regarding what changes thanks to our work.

However, an impression is not a changed opinion and a published article is not an influenced decision.

This gap between output and outcome is the heart of the problem. Closing it requires methodology, explicit attribution, and the willingness to link activity to results in a way that holds up to external scrutiny. Especially when dealing with invisible impact such as when you have to measure an avoided regulatory crisis, or quantify a coalition built over eighteen months that preserved access to strategic markets. This is real, measurable impact, but very few agencies actually do it.

The fragmentation that weakens us

Adding to the complexity is a fragmentation that runs through the entire supply chain. Universities measure to validate theories. Agencies measure to justify budgets. Clients measure to make decisions. The same word, “measurement”, three different languages.

The result is that, as a profession, we are unable to demonstrate our value in a unified and credible way. The reports we produce are often unreadable to a CFO, as they use metrics that don’t translate into the language of business, risk or strategy, and every time that happens, we lose credibility.

From best practices to standards

Best practices remain the asset of those who have already made this choice. Standards create common ground that goes beyond individual sensibility. As long as measurement remains an individual choice adopted when convenient and set aside when it exposes us, the sector does not build collective credibility. It only builds personal reputations. And the client, who over time learns to tell the difference, stops believing the numbers.

In 1999, Linda Hon and James Grunig developed a framework for measuring something the sector continues to treat as intangible: the quality of relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders. Trust, commitment, satisfaction, reciprocity. A rigorous, accessible tool, still today among the most cited in international academic literature. Still today almost entirely ignored in professional practice. Jim Macnamara, studying PR effectiveness, identified the reason: the problem is the reluctance to apply them when the results might prove uncomfortable.

The shift from tools to standards is a matter of identity. It means accepting that the quality of one’s work is measured against external, non-negotiable parameters. It is the leap that distinguishes a mature profession from a collection of artisanal practices, however excellent.

The measure of credibility