PR Metrics: What Can You Actually Defend in the Boardroom?

A PR report filled with recognisable media logos can look impressive. Add a respectable number of placements, a Share of Voice chart and a few coverage highlights, and you have something that seems to demonstrate a successful programme.

Those figures have their uses. The interesting part begins when someone asks what they actually mean for the organisation.

I've always found that the value of a PR metric depends heavily on the objective behind it. A result that looks excellent in one programme might be largely irrelevant in another.

1When Tier 1 isn't really Tier 1

Imagine a cybersecurity company's executive appearing in a major national publication to discuss the risks of social media for children. It's a respected outlet, the interview may be excellent, and the coverage could be valuable for broader awareness.

But if the PR programme was designed to reach enterprise buyers responsible for identity security, we'd need to explain how that particular interview contributed to the objective.

That's where traditional media tiering can become misleading.

A specialist publication with a relatively modest readership could be far more relevant to an enterprise technology company than a national newspaper with millions of readers. Equally, that national newspaper might be exactly the right target for a corporate reputation campaign.

Neither publication has a fixed value independent of the audience and the story.

I would rather see a media list built around the people we need to reach than one organised primarily by the prestige of the publication.

2Share of Voice is only as useful as the comparison

Share of Voice creates a similar challenge. It's a useful measure when we understand what we're comparing, but a percentage on its own says very little.

The result depends on which competitors we include, which publications we monitor and whether we're measuring all brand mentions or a particular industry conversation.

Imagine that one of our competitors announces a major acquisition. Its media presence increases sharply, and our Share of Voice falls even though our own coverage remains steady.

That change deserves an explanation before anyone concludes that our PR programme is losing ground.

A consistent comparison over time can reveal meaningful shifts in visibility. But we still need to understand what caused those shifts and whether they matter to our objectives.

3What should we actually report?

I would start with what the programme was trying to achieve and then choose the evidence that helps assess progress.

For a company trying to establish technical credibility, that could include coverage in publications its buyers read, interviews where experts explain relevant industry issues, or journalists returning to the company for further commentary.

We might also find that sales teams are using an executive interview in conversations with customers. That's useful evidence of how the material is being used, although it doesn't automatically prove a commercial return.

Coverage volume, publication prominence and Share of Voice still have a place in reporting. Their usefulness improves considerably when we explain how they relate to the audiences and objectives behind the programme.

A good PR report should help leadership understand what the communications team achieved, how confidently it can assess that progress and where its efforts should go next.

The logos can stay on the slide. We just need to be able to explain why they're there.