Evaluate your PR Agency
Cyril Mani, Communications Manger - Sony Corporation, Saudi Arabia                         December 31, 2001
Feedback : cyril@meesony.com
This article first appeared in Gulf Marketing Review. For more details visit www.gmr-online.com

Most corporates who deal with public relations specialists and image builders often wonder whether their P.R. agency has delivered what was promised / expected. And whether they have paid the right amount of compensation to them. The question is, how do you rationalize the retainers and fees paid to your P.R. agency ?

Like many others in my position, I have spent many long hours with my team discussing why a particular press release did not appear and when it was expected to eventually appear. And after some soul searching, we decided to design and implement a P.R. appraisal system. The strategy was to quantify performance of a P.R. exercise and link (a chunk of) the fees to performance. Apart from rationalizing & making the fee structure performance linked, this model will hopefully put an end to the post-release stream of excuses offered by P.R. agencies that we are all so familiar with.

The PR Agency Evaluation Model

The PR agency evaluation model starts by outlining the period within which the P.R. exercise is to be conducted. (This could be the duration of a focused P.R. exercise or say, an annual period in case of ongoing P.R. activities.)

For this period, a minimum performance threshold benchmark for P.R. activities is defined, which is acceptable to the P.R. agency. (In this process, a weight is assigned to each publication.)
Simultaneously, an agreement is reached with the P.R. agency for a fixed fee per press release for the ensuing period / P.R. exercise. Along with an incentive value for each Weighted Release Score (WRS).

Immediately after expiry of the period, performance is measured. If performance exceeds the minimum threshold benchmark, incentive is calculated based on number of WRS. Else, the P.R. Agency is entitled to the Minimum Fees based on fixed fee per release.

Minimum Performance Threshold

Objectives To ensure that PR agencies are rewarded for any release that appears over and above a minimum benchmark. And to warn if results fall below benchmark, may signal the need to review of the P.R. agency or the benchmark.

Obviously, the minimum threshold level as well as the fees must be regularly reviewed.

Defining Minimum Performance Threshold Benchmark First, classify all target periodicals into groups. Assign a weight to each group, depending on how important it is for the client / brand to get its message published in those publications.
In the example given below Group A was assigned a value of 10, group B a value of 5 and group C a value of 1.

Grouping & weights may vary for each company and brand. And must of course, be reviewed periodically.

Now, get your P.R. agency to agree on the minimum number of releases for each group of publications - which will ensure the minimum necessary exposure. Exceeding this level of releases will automatically qualify your P.R. agency for incentive.
In the example, at least 1 release should be carried in each of the 3 publications listed in group A; in group B at least 4 releases are expected (1 each) in any of the 9 publications while in group C and 6 releases are set as the minimum in the group's 12 titles.

This model won't allow for any incentive if (say) only 1 release appears in Group A, 3 in group B and 5 appear in group C, viz. the agency will only be compensated by the fixed fee based on the actual no of releases.

Fixed Fees The effort of defining Minimum Performance Threshold is not complete until you get into an agreement with your P.R. agency for a fixed fee per press release for the P.R. exercise.
In the example below, SR 2000 ($545) per release is the value attributed to the agency's perceived minimum threshold effort.

Weighted Release Score (WRS) and Incentive Value of each WRS Incentive is due to the P.R. agency if the volume of releases published exceeds the minimum threshold. To arrive at the amount due, you have to first compute the Weighted Release Score (WRS) for any release above the minimum.
For example if 2 releases appear in group A, the WRS will be 20 (2 x 10 - 10 is the weight assigned to group A titles). Similarly for 6 releases appearing in group B, the WRS will be 30 (6 x 5).

Now, we set the value of each WRS.
In the example below, the Incentive Value of each WRS is set as SR45. The incentive amount payable for 2 releases in group A is SR 45 x 20 (the WRS for 2 appearances) or SR 900. Similarly in group B, 7 releases would equate to SR 45 x 35 (WRS for 7 releases) or SR 1,575

While the above gives an indication of how to arrive at the incentive, the table also displays the minimum or maximum incentive amounts possible. Moreover, the notes attached to the table explain the various alternative scenarios that may occur.

Critique

The strength of this type of evaluation model lies in changing the variables according to your requirement as the table has been developed in a standard spreadsheet . The WRS can be changed or the incentive amount can be changed or of course, the publications. Similarly, the weights of each group or even the number of groups can be changed.

This model in its current form, does not cover (nor is influenced by) qualitative factors like content analysis. However, publishing of photographs can be treated simply by building in an incentive for pictures. If a picture appears alongside your release, you could agree to pay a premium of (say) 25% to your P.R. agency.

This model is designed specifically for Press PR evaluation. A TV PR evaluation model could also be designed using similar principles. And the next version of this model could further fine tune the evaluation process by incorporating the effects of content analysis.

Flexibility is the cornerstone of this model, which is designed to help both clients and PR practitioners to sort out crying issues in a more professional manner.