The industry measures communications work quantitatively rather than qualitatively

The study asked communications executives what data they regularly measure and evaluate as part of their communications work.

Measuring success is an important and much-discussed topic in the industry. As many as 78 percent of communications professionals consider regular measurement of communications measures to be very or somewhat important. Quantitative data is at the top of the list of criteria that PR professionals continuously measure: 63 percent measure the number of publications and mentions, 58 percent regularly measure the reach of their communication measures, and 40 percent determine interaction and engagement. In fourth place is the media equivalent value, which 30 percent of respondents also calculate regularly.

Reputation & image and topic leadership still expandable

When it comes to qualitative data, however, PR professionals are even more reticent, according to the study. The results show that only 28 percent regularly measure tonality: Accordingly, not even one in three evaluates the extent to which reporting is positive, negative or neutral. Only just under one in four respondents considers the environment and context of the publication (24 percent) or evaluates the extent to which the communications work pays off for the reputation and image of the company (23 percent).

Around one-sixth of PR professionals evaluate the ratio of input to output (18 percent), survey the impact of communication measures, for example on sales (17 percent), or measure topic leadership in the media (16 percent). 7 percent of the PR professionals surveyed state that they have not yet measured any data.

Desire for quality recognizable

Nevertheless, the study shows that there is a desire for more qualitative data measurements. For example, over half of the respondents state that ideally they would like to see the factors of reputation and image in first place in regular measurement (59 percent). The criteria of topic leadership and environment and context are also ideally important indicators of the success of their communications measures for over a third (39 percent). A good third also believe that the ratio of input to output (35 percent) and the effect on sales (33 percent) should be measured regularly.

When it comes to the frequency of data evaluation, most companies and agencies conduct a monthly evaluation (39 percent). Quarterly measures 18 percent, and 13 percent measure at weekly intervals. Less frequently, data is evaluated daily (12 percent), semi-annually (8 percent) or annually (6 percent).

The results at a glance

Importance of measuring the success of communication measures

• Very important 40%
• Rather important 38%
• Draw 7%
• Less important 2%
• Not important at all 1%
• Not specified 12%

Regularly measured and evaluated data as part of the communication work

• Number of publications and mentions 63%
• Range 58%
• Interaction and engagement 40%
• Media equivalent value 30%
• Tonality 28%
• Environment and context of publication 24%
• Reputation and Image 23%
• Ratio of input to output 18%
• Effect of communication, for example on sales 17%
• Theme leadership 16%
• No data is measured at our site so far 7%

Most important factors for measurement in communication in the ideal case

• Reputation and image 59%
• Range 55%
• Interaction and engagement 47%
• Number of publications and mentions 44%
• Publication environment and context 39%
• Theme leadership 39%
• Input to output ratio 35%
• Effect of communication, for example on sales 33%
• Tonality 33%
• Media equivalent value 27%
• Do not know 3%

Frequency of measurement and evaluation of data

• Monthly 39%
• Quarterly 18%
• Weekly 13%
• Daily 12%
• Semiannual 8%
• Annual 6%
• Do not know 4%

The PR Trendmonitor by News Aktuell and Per was conducted as an online survey in February 2023 among 297 communications professionals from companies, organizations and PR agencies in Switzerland and Germany.