Measurement in PR – One size doesn’t fit all

The thorny issue of PR measurement. It’s a topic that PR agencies – quite rightly – are regularly asked about.
“How do I measure the success of PR? How do I know it’s working?”
Thankfully, we’ve come a long way from AVE (Advertising Value Equivalency). I remember at the start of my PR career measuring newspapers and magazines with a ruler to determine the column inches and then multiplying it by corresponding advertising cost. I literally had to do that. It was, frankly, bonkers. Not least because agencies would then add an extra multiplier to account for the fact that editorial was considered more likely to be read than advertorial. This multiplier was entirely at the discretion of the agency and not always disclosed to clients. Some agencies applied a modest 2x multiplier, others went as high as 6x.
AVE is a crude metric and, for the most part, we’ve gone beyond using it. Not least because we’re now firmly in the age of digital PR.
How much data is too much?
With a much larger proportion of coverage now appearing online compared to print, we have a far greater range of tools and data points to help measure the impact of earned media coverage. The trouble is that there are so many metrics available that it’s hard for an agency or a client to decide which ones to focus on.
First, you have the total volume of coverage – how many times a client’s brand has been featured in the media. Beyond this, we have further metrics regarding the traffic and domain authorities of the websites, and an estimated number of views an article has had. The numbers quickly add up. Indeed, some agencies add up the total number of views that their client’s online coverage has received – and the numbers quickly get so high that they become meaningless.
Counting pieces of coverage is of course useful (and a measurement we still frequently use), but it has to have the added context of where that coverage is achieved. I’d argue that five pieces of press release coverage on random websites with poor readership or, moreover, readerships that are not aligned with an organisation’s target customers, are not as valuable as just one in-depth interview in a key media target (such as a prominent trade publication, for B2B PR).
Share of voice is another popular metric. This works well if a client has a particular topic that they want to focus in on, or close competitors they want to benchmark their media coverage against. But again, there is a risk of running into rather meaningless numbers that are tricky to make sense of.
Looking beyond coverage
Critically, when assessing the success or impact of PR activities, you cannot solely focus on media coverage itself. At City Road Comms, our services extend beyond media relations – we offer a broader range of strategies and activities to achieve the right outcomes for clients. For instance, if a client has a very defined set of prospects (say, 20-30 businesses that they’re keen to speak to) then a targeted event or webinar might be a better option to start those conversations.
There is another important question to ask: who is assessing the results? The sorts of KPIs and metrics that will appeal to a marketing director may well differ from what a founder or CEO will want to see.
Often, we are working closely with senior marketing professionals, well-versed in the different metrics mentioned above. But in large organisations they are often then required to report that information upwards to senior leadership teams and boards who will typically require a quick, easy-to-understand demonstration of what the PR activity has achieved. With diverse strategies covering a multitude of different campaigns and activities, that’s a tough ask.
Start with the objectives
In essence, any effort to measure the success of PR always must start with the initial objectives. So, before questioning metrics, setting KPIs or analysing results, agencies and clients have to have open conversations about what the PR actually needs to achieve.
One client, for example, might want ‘always on’ PR to build and sustain brand awareness. Here, metrics relating to the volume, frequency and quality of coverage – all key indicators that the brand is being seen – are useful. Another client might have a more specific goal of wanting to be seen as the go-to brand for a particular subject or issue; here, setting up competitor analysis and share of voice metrics will allow the client to see how visible their name is when set against a particular phrase.
With a clear focus on the objectives, measuring PR success and setting KPIs becomes far easier. The conversation needs to start from what the aims of the PR activity are, and – crucially – the agency needs to be open about what is possible and what is valuable. Moreover, objectives, and the measurements for assessing whether they are achieved, need to evolve over time in line with clients’ wants and needs. I am grateful we’ve moved beyond measuring newspapers with a ruler, but without proper thought and discussion, modern data-driven PR metrics can be just as meaningless.

Rachel Mitchell
Integrated Communications Director
About the author
Rachel joined CRC in 2024 as Integrated Communications Director, bringing over 15 years of B2B PR and content experience. She has worked with clients ranging from startups to multinational corporates, from a variety of sectors including technology, manufacturing, mobility, energy and sustainability. Rachel’s responsibilities include developing CRC’s business proposition; integrating the various PR and communications strategies to ensure the best outcomes for clients.
Email