An Example of Confused Terminology

A recent article published in the PRSA's new PR Journal provides a example of how poorly the terms "output", "outtake" and "outcome" are understood in the industry, even in this peer-reviewed publication which features articles from the leading academics and industry practitioners.

My recent post, "Outputs, and Outtakes, and Outcomes Oh My!" lamented how frequently I see these terms misused. In addition to the comments I got on the blog, I had email exchanges with several people. One member of the IPR's Measurement Commission said "I'm extremely puzzled how anyone could possibly misinterpret outputs (which only relate to mentions) with outcomes (which must relate to attitude or behavior reinforcement or change)."

I didn't have to look far for an example.

In this paper titled "The Application of "Best Practices" in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation Systems" published in the first issue of the PR Journal, EchoResearch's President David Michaelson and CEO Sandra Macleod, noted as "two of the world's leading experts in communications research and measurement", ouputs and outcomes are used incorrectly if you take, as I do, the IPR's Guidelines for Meauring the Effectiveness of PR Programs and Activities authored by Prof. Walter Lindenmann as the standard definition. (Note: David Michaelson is on the Institute for PR's Commission on Public Relations Measurement & Evaluation under whose aegis the guidelines were published.)

Before I address the misuse of the term, let me say the paper is useful and, for PR practioners unfamiliar with conducting market research it should be a "must read" to understand the basics of constructing a valid research methodology. However, IMHO, it falls short of delivering the "best practices" by skimming over the tough issues of how to isolate PR's impact from other marketing/communications/sales activities and how to link PR to sales. But this is a topic for another post, perhaps.

Back to the example. On page 3 of the paper, Michaelson and Macleod write:

"Companies specializing in public relations measurement and evaluation have traditionally focused on evaluating only the outcomes of public relations. These outcomes are most commonly the media or press coverage that is a direct result of media relations activities (outputs)."

These two sentences say that outcomes are the number of clips or impressions while outputs are the number of press releases issued, perhaps the number of reporters called or who attended a press conference, etc.

Here are Lindenmann's definitions on page 7 of his paper:

"...PR outputs, which are usually short-term and surface (e.g., the amount of press coverage received or exposure of a particular message)..."

"...PR outcomes (e.g., did the program or activity change opinion and attitude levels, and possibly behavior patterns?)."

If the experts and members of the IPR Measurement Commission don't use the terms accurately, the rest of the industry will be confused, as I believe they are today.

Why do I rant about this? We all know words are important -- that's why we do what we do. We also know that words come with certain associations and connotations from everyday usage and I believe the terms "outputs" and "outcomes" are commonly used in ways that are dramatically different than what the IPR intends. (Outtakes is just a strange word that only exists, perhaps, in the world of film editing.)

Michaelson's and Macleod's misuse of outputs above is an example where common usage gets substituted for the official definition. If someone asked me what my output was today, I'd probably answer "a blog post, 35 emails, and 3 meetings" or something. When a CEO thinks of outputs, he probably thinks about how many widgets come off the assembly lines of his factory, not the number of his widgets on store shelves. Thus when a CEO (or other non-communications exec) hears the term outputs in association with communications activities, she probably thinks in terms of the activities of the PR staff as Michaelson and Macleod describe them, and not how many articles the company was mentioned in. And, as I have said before, I believe the only "outcomes" C-level staff are interested in are those that contribute financially to the firm's performance.

It is natural for people to apply their common understanding of terms when they hear them in a new context. It is a lot of work to try to wrap new meanings around them and have those new meanings widely accepted. The IPR and PRSA need to either step up efforts to educate the industry on the correct use of these terms or consider changing them to terms that are understandable based on their common usage.

I believe change is the preferred course. My nominations for new, more readily understandable terms are:

• Media Influence: clips, impressions, message pick up that indicate that PR activities and programs influenced the media to distribute the intended information
• Audience Influence: perceptual or attidudinal changes that indicate the intended audience saw the information, paid attention to it, and that the desired change took place
• Business Influence: sales, stock price, or brand equity valuation increases that are linked to these activities

What's your vote: change or stick with outputs/outtakes/outcomes?