Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx
Contents
lists
available
at
SciVerse
ScienceDirect
Public
Relations
Review
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation
Tom
Watson
∗
Bournemouth
University,
United
Kingdom
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Keywords:
Evaluation
History
Measurement
Practice
Public
relations
Practitioners
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
The
measurement
and
evaluation
of
public
relations
effectiveness
has
long
been
a
major
professional
and
research
issue.
In
the
first
half
of
the
20th
century,
there
were
two
research
methods
applied,
opinion
polls
and
basic
media
analysis.
These
were
used
to
plan
campaigns
and
monitor
progress
of
media
relations
activities.
In
the
second
half
of
the
century,
as
the
practices
of
public
relations
expanded,
greater
emphasis
was
given
to
media
analysis
but
the
evidence
of
many
practitioner
studies
was
that
measurement
and
evaluation
was
more
discussed
than
undertaken.
In
the
final
25
years
of
the
century,
the
academic
voice
began
to
become
more
prominent
in
the
discussion
and
development
of
methodologies
and
in
nationally-based
education
programmes
aimed
at
practitioners.
The
Internet
and
social
media
also
began
to
change
practices.
There
were
mixed
results
from
this
clamour:
more
practitioners
began
to
evaluate
public
relations
activity
(but
many
still
applied
discredited
measures)
whilst
new
techniques
began
to
be
introduced.
Document
analysis
has
prepared
a
timeline
of
the
development
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
This
paper
explores
the
academic
and
professional
themes
that
have
characterised
the
development
of
this
important
public
relations
practice
over
the
past
110
years.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
Public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation
has
long
been
a
major
practice
subject.
From
the
late
1970s
onwards
it
has
been
identified
as
an
important
issue
for
research
and
practice
implementation
(McElreath,
1980,
1989;
Synnott
&
McKie,
1997;
Watson,
2008;
Watson
&
Noble,
2007).
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
starts
much
earlier,
with
some
suggesting
that
media
monitoring
practices
can
be
identified
from
the
late
18th
century
onwards
(Lamme
&
Russell,
2010).
It
is,
however,
from
the
beginning
of
the
20th
century,
when
‘public
relations’
began
to
be
widely
used
as
the
description
for
a
set
of
communication
activities,
that
measurement
practices
can
be
identified.
This
paper
traces
that
development
which
parallels
public
relations’
holistic
beginnings
through
to
its
transformation
into
a
communication
practice,
with
strong
publicity
influences.
Along
the
way,
there
has
been
the
worldwide
expansion
of
public
relations
practices,
services
and
education;
the
growth
of
measurement
and
evaluation
services;
and
the
influence
of
academic
thinking.
This
paper
uses
a
timeline
narrative
to
describe
and
discuss
the
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation
over
more
than
a
century.
In
many
ways
this
evolution
has
similarities
to
the
development
of
public
relations
as
an
emerging
and
then
extensive
communications
practice.
Like
public
relations,
it
starts
with
elements
of
both
social
science
research,
especially
opinion
polling,
and
of
a
practice
emphasis
on
publicity
through
media
channels.
By
the
mid-20th
century,
this
moves
much
more
towards
a
publicity-led
practice
with
the
use
of
media
analytics
becoming
far
more
important
than
social
science
methods.
However,
but
the
beginning
of
the
21st
century,
the
balance
was
moving
back
towards
more
sophistication
∗
Correspondence
address:
The
Media
School,
Bournemouth
University,
Poole,
Dorset
BH12
5BB,
United
Kingdom.
Tel.:
+44
01202
961986;
fax:
+44
01202
965530.
E-mail
address:
0363-8111/$
–
see
front
matter ©
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
provided by Bournemouth University Research Online
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
2 T.
Watson
/
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx
in
measurement
and
the
wider
alignment
of
public
relations
communication
objectives
with
organisational
objectives,
especially
in
corporate
public
relations
where
new
techniques
such
as
scorecards
(Zerfass,
2005)
are
being
used.
Ironically,
this
area
of
public
relations
is
adopting
whole-of-organisation
(holistic)
approaches
to
organisational
communication
similar
to
those
promoted
in
the
1920s
and
1930s.
2.
The
beginnings
The
timeline
starts
before
the
term,
public
relations,
came
into
use.
Lamme
and
Russell’s
monograph,
Removing
the
spin:
Towards
a
new
theory
of
public
relations
history
(Lamme
&
Russell,
2010)
argues
that
from
George
Washington
onwards,
US
presidents
monitored
newspapers
in
order
to
gain
intelligence
on
what
was
being
said
about
them
and
the
views
of
fellow
citizens.
In
the
19th
century,
many
industries
and
groups
also
tracked
media
coverage
and
public
opinion.
They
ranged
from
railroads
to
temperance
societies
and
evangelists.
In
the
US
and
UK,
news
cuttings
agencies
were
established
in
the
latter
part
of
the
century.
From
some
of
these,
there
is
lineage
to
today’s
international
computer-based
evaluation
companies.
As
the
20th
century
opened,
the
first
publicity
agencies
were
formed
in
the
United
States.
Cutlip
(1994)
dates
the
first
to
the
Publicity
Bureau
in
Boston
in
1900.
One
of
its
major
clients
from
1903
onwards
was
the
telecommunications
busi-
ness,
American
Telephone
&
Telegraph
Company
(AT&T)
which
was
based
in
the
same
city.
AT&T
and
its
agency
“early
saw
the
need
for
systematically
gauging
public
opinion
.
.
.
collected
and
studied
newspaper
clippings
from
the
nation’s
press”
(Cutlip,
1994,
p.
18).
It
found
that
90%
were
antagonistic.
By
modifying
company
behaviour
and
disseminating
“real
infor-
mation
through
the
press,”
AT&T
gradually
reduced
the
negative
coverage
to
“sixty
percent
and
lower”
(ibid,
p.
18).
Working
for
railroad
interests,
the
Publicity
Bureau
developed
a
system
of
monitoring
and
influencing
press
coverage.
Called
The
Barometer,
it
developed
a
card
index
of
the
attitudes
of
editors,
gained
from
visits,
and
media
usage
of
publicity
material.
This
allowed
the
agency
to
“whether
a
paper
is
“Good”
or
“Bad”
from
the
standpoint
of
the
railroads”
(ibid,
p.
21)
Cutlip
commented,
ironically,
that
“public
relations
research
is
not
as
new
as
some
think,”
(ibid,
p.
21).
Amongst
the
founders
of
public
relations
practice
in
the
US,
Ivy
L.
Lee,
who
formed
two
of
the
earliest
public
relations
advisory
firms,
took
the
view
that
he
was
engaged
in
an
art
whereas
another
pioneer,
Edward
L.
Bernays,
saw
public
relations
as
an
applied
social
science
(Ewen,
1996;
Tye,
1998).
Lee,
according
to
his
biographer,
considered
that
his
activity
was
nondefinable
and
nonmeasurable.
It
only
existed
through
him
and
was
thus
not
comparable
(Hiebert,
1966).
Cutlip
says
Lee
“constantly
referred
to
his
work
as
an
art.
In
fact,
Bernays
was
quoted
in
November
1940
as
saying,
“He
(Ivy
Lee)
used
to
tell
me
that
this
was
an
artist’s
field,
that
what
he
was
doing
would
die
with
him”
(Cutlip,
1994,
p.
59).
Bernays
presented
public
relations
as
an
applied
social
science
to
be
planned
through
opinion
research
and
precisely
evaluated.
Ironically,
there
is
very
little
discussion
of
measurement
and
evaluation
of
campaign
effectiveness
in
Bernays’
books
and
papers.
His
first
book,
Crystallizing
Public
Opinion,
(Bernays,
1923)
set
the
foundations
for
a
systematic
approach
to
public
relations
(Pavlik,
1987).
Unlike
Lee,
who
was
in
practice
before
the
First
World
War,
Bernays
was
on
the
staff
of
the
Committee
on
Public
Information
(The
Creel
Committee)
which
was
“organised
to
unite
public
opinion
behind
the
war
at
home
and
propagandize
American
peace
aims
abroad”
and
“(whose)
demonstration
of
propaganda
was
to
have
a
profound
effect
on
American
culture
and
on
the
future
of
public
relations”
(Cutlip,
1994,
p.
106).
Advertising
and
the
publicity
side
of
public
relations
both
expanded
rapidly
in
the
1920s
driven
along
by
the
self-publicising
efforts
of
pioneers
and
several
business
books
on
publicity
and
public
relations.
Bernays’
books
and
Lee’s
privately
published
Publicity
Some
of
the
Things
It
Is
and
Is
Not
(Lee,
1925),
which
Cutlip
says
attracted
John
W.
Hill
into
public
relations,
were
well
known
along
with
R.H.
Wilder
and
K.L.
Buell’s
Publicity
(Wilder
&
Buell,
1923)
and
several
other
books.
The
latter
two
publicists
defined
publicity
as
“the
organised
and
deliberate
effort
to
enlist
the
support
of
the
public
for
an
idea,
sponsored
by
any
given
group
for
any
given
purpose,”
(ibid,
p.
109).
Although
cuttings
agencies
monitored
press
coverage
for
clients,
there
was
little
discussion
of
the
measurement
and
eval-
uation
of
publicity
or
public
relations
activity.
It
was
a
former
magazine
editor,
Arthur
W.
Page,
who
brought
the
disciplines
of
opinion
research
into
public
relations
and
organisational
communication
at
American
Telephone
and
Telegraph
(AT&T).
In
the
1920s,
the
journalist
and
commentator
Walter
Lippmann’s
(1922)
book
Public
Opinion
had
a
major
influence
on
all
forms
of
communication.
He
identified
the
role
of
public
opinion
in
legitimising
governments
and
organisations.
Although
AT&T
had
started
using
opinion
polling
shortly
before
Arthur
Page
joined
it,
he
championed
the
use
of
surveys
which
were
to
be
an
important
factor
in
developing
a
customer-facing
culture
at
the
telecommunications
giant.
“He
deserves
credit
for
recognizing
the
need
for
feedback
and
encouraging
development
of
systems
to
gauge
the
moods
of
AT&T’s
publics.
Integra-
tion
of
formal
feedback
systems
into
the
public
relations
function
is
one
of
his
contributions
to
public
relations
practise”
(Griese,
2001,
p.
122).
AT&T
continued
to
monitor
media,
although
the
examples
are
less
prevalent
than
the
use
of
opinion
surveys.
Page’s
biographer,
Noel
Griese,
has
identified
two
studies
of
the
use
by
newspapers
of
“clipsheets”
(broadsheets
with
several
AT&T
news
items
which
editors
would
select
and
send
to
typesetters)
in
1932
and
1933.
These
were
measured
by
the
number
of
items
published
and
the
total
of
column
inches
of
coverage.
“Whilst
the
column
inches
of
publicity
a
corporation
gets
are
not
a
reliable
indicator
of
the
amount
of
good
will
being
built,
these
studies
show
AT&T’s
practice
of
systematically
evaluating
public
relations
devices”
(Griese,
2001,
p.
153).
Page
created
a
“public
relations
laboratory
where
PR
successes
and
failures
were
gathered,
studied
and
the
lessons
learnt
passed
on
to
his
colleagues
at
AT&T”
(Broom
&
Dozier,
1990,
p.
xi).
This
approach
continued
after
his
retirement
in
1947
until
the
telephone
monopoly
was
broken
up
in
the
late
1970s.
It
is
notable,
however,
that
AT&T
was
not
measuring
the
results
of
communication
activity
(outcomes)
(Tedlow,
1979).
Page
used
the
term
‘public
relations’
in
an
organisationally
holistic
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
T.
Watson
/
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx 3
manner
with
a
strong
emphasis
on
the
corporation
understanding
“the
overall
relations
with
the
public
it
served”
(Griese,
2001,
p.
195).
In
1938
he
explained
it
further:
“The
task
which
business
has,
and
which
it
has
always
had,
of
fitting
itself
to
the
pattern
of
public
desires,
has
lately
come
to
be
called
public
relations”
(ibid,
p.
195).
3.
1930s
and
1940s
By
the
late
1930s,
a
wide
range
of
measurement
and
evaluation
methods
were
being
used
in
the
United
States,
notably
by
various
levels
of
government.
Batchelor,
writing
in
1938,
gave
two
examples
of
the
monitoring
and
interpretation
of
media
publicity.
The
Roosevelt
Administration
gives
close
attention
not
merely
to
the
technique
of
publicity
dissemination
but
also
to
the
manner
of
its
reception.
In
other
words,
it
watches
carefully
all
changes
in
the
political
attitudes
of
a
community.
The
sum
of
these
numerous
local
impressions
constitutes,
of
course,
a
barometer
of
national
opinion
that
possesses
great
value.
(p.
212)
[The
method
of
data
collection
is
not
identified
by
Batchelor]
He
also
discussed
Toledo
Associates,
which
was
a
“cooperative
publicity
effort,
sponsored
by
local
business
interests”
set
up
to
promote
the
city
of
Toledo,
Ohio
during
the
Great
Depression.
Toledo’s
experiment
in
cooperative
industrial
publicity
became
an
unqualified
success.
Ninety-one
per
cent
of
more
than
72,000
clippings,
representing
newspaper
circulations
totalling
more
than
one
and
half
millions,
were
regarded
as
favourable
to
the
city’s
interests
(p.
214).
So
it
can
be
seen
that
at
high
level,
measurement
and
evaluation
were
taking
place
using
methods
that
are
still
in
place
today.
Although
publicity
had
always
continued
as
a
practice,
it
was
seen
as
a
delivery
sub-set
of
public
relations.
The
mid-
century
view,
expressed
by
Griswold
and
Griswold
(1948),
was
that
public
relations
was
a
management
function
to
create
relationships
and
“earn
public
understanding
and
acceptance”
(p.
4).
Plackard
and
Blackmon
(1947)
separated
public
rela-
tions
as
“the
administrative
philosophy
of
an
organisation”
which
“stems
from
corporate
character
and
over-all
operations”
from
publicity
which
was
“the
art
of
influencing
opinion
by
special
preparation
and
dissemination
of
news”
(p.
14).
Com-
munication
or
publicity
were
thus
delivery
and
dialogue
processes
but
not
conceived
as
public
relations
itself.
That
view
changed
quickly
as
consumer
products
were
developed
and
notions
of
corporate
and
product
brands
grew.
Public
relations
lost
that
holistic
concept
and
became
typified
by
publicity
practices.
L’Etang
(2004),
writing
about
the
1960s,
summarised
the
changed
situation
as:
“business
managers
saw
public
relations
as
a
cheap
way
of
getting
media
coverage
in
comparison
with
advertising.”
The
impact
on
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation
was
a
move
away
from
the
social
science-led
emphasis
on
public
opinion
research
to
a
more
pragmatic
analysis
of
media
coverage,
which
was
to
dominate
the
second
half
of
the
20th
century.
4.
Media
evaluation
practices
to
1950
From
early
times,
PR
practitioners
and
organisations
had
monitored
press
coverage
of
their
own
and
others
activities.
In
1942,
Harlow
wrote
that
public
relations
practitioners
and
their
employers
“should
not
be
impressed
by
sheaves
of
press
clippings”
(p.
43)
as
a
volume
indicator
of
what
was
going
on.
Most
books
on
public
relations
across
the
initial
40–50
year
period
discussed
measurement
of
the
volume
of
coverage,
its
length
in
column
inches
and
whether
it
was
positive
or
negative.
The
creation
of
the
clippings
or
cuttings
book
became
an
art
form
with
thick
card
paper
on
which
clippings
were
mounted.
Plackard
and
Blackmon
gave
this
ethically
dubious
advice
in
1947:
“The
publicist
must
learn
the
art
of
“pepping
up”
publicity
results.
Publicity
clippings
as
such
are
not
sufficiently
interesting
to
show
to
a
client.
However,
they
can
be
dressed
up
or
dramatized
in
unusual
ways”
(p.
299).
Examples
given
included
“trick
photography”
by
blowing
cuttings
up
and
then
printing
large
sheets
of
folded
card
on
which
they
were
placed;
graphic
presentation
of
cuttings
beneath
newspaper
mastheads;
and
displays
on
large
display
boards,
especially
in
hall
corridors,
all
in
order
to
emphasise
the
volume.
5.
The
UK
Public
relations
by
mid-century
was
well-established
in
the
United
States,
but
in
the
UK,
it
was
a
post-World
War
2
phenomenon.
The
first
press
agency,
Editorial
Services,
had
been
set
up
by
Basil
Clarke
in
London
in
1924
(L’Etang,
2004)
but
the
establishment
and
real
growth
of
public
relations
came
as
a
result
of
journalists
and
propaganda
experts
coming
out
of
government
and
the
armed
forces
in
1945
with
knowledge
of
news
management
and
propaganda
methods.
The
Institute
of
Public
Relations
(IPR)
was
set
up
in
1948,
mainly
by
governmental
communicators
in
information
officer
posts,
as
the
first
step
to
professionalise
their
area
of
activity
(ibid.).
The
first
IPR
conference
was
in
1949
and
the
first
British
book,
a
‘how-to’
guide
entitled
Public
relations
and
publicity
by
J.H.
Brebner
(1949),
appeared
in
the
same
year.
From
its
outset,
issues
of
evaluating
public
relations
were
discussed
in
the
IPR’s
Journal:
mostly
as
methods
of
collation
of
cuttings
and
transcripts,
and
how
to
do
it
cheaply
(J.
L’Etang,
personal
communication,
January
10,
2011).
Unlike
the
US
with
its
interest
in
social
sciences
and
university
education,
there
was
a
strong
anti-intellectual
streak
in
the
IPR.
This
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
4 T.
Watson
/
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx
was
expressed
by
its
1950
President
Alan
Hess
who
inveighed
against
“a
tendency
for
too
much
intellectualisation
and
too
much
market
research
mumbo-jumbo”
(L’Etang,
2004,
p.
75).
The
IPR
was
not
to
produce
its
own
book
on
PR
until
1958
and
training
support
for
members
was
slow
to
start.
6.
Evaluation
scholarship
The
first
edition
of
Scott
Cutlip
and
Alan
Center’s
long
standing
and
still
published
PR
text,
Effective
Public
Relations,
addresses
measurement
and
evaluation
mainly
through
the
routes
of
public
opinion
research.
Some
commentators
(notably
Lindenmann,
2005)
consider
that
the
first
edition
of
Cutlip
and
Center
(1952)
was
the
first
scholarly
book
to
mention
the
measurement
and
evaluation
of
public
relations
programmes.
In
later
editions,
they
introduced
their
PII
(Preparation,
Implementation,
Impact)
model
of
planning
and
measuring
PR
programmes.
It
was
the
most
widely
taught
process
model
until
the
late
1990s.
Analysis
of
the
‘program
research
and
evaluation’
sub-section
of
Cutlip’s
bibliography
of
public
relations
research
shows
that
of
the
159
articles
listed
from
1939
to
the
early
1960s,
the
largest
group
(67)
were
concerned
with
opinion
research,
including
employee
studies
(Cutlip,
1965).
This
was
followed
by
a
cluster
of
papers
with
topics
such
as
public
relations,
promotional
activity
(including
advertising),
publicity
research
and
measurement
(31)
and
research
methods
and
surveys
(28).
Media
measurement
(including
press,
film,
TV,
radio
and
mass
media
in
general),
which
was
soon
to
become
the
dominant
area
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation,
had
only
produced
15
papers
in
a
quarter
of
a
century.
Within
the
range
of
papers,
there
was
little
discussion
of
the
methodology
of
measuring
public
relations
activity
or
programmes,
with
the
main
emphasis
on
objective
setting
based
on
opinion
research.
Cutlip’s
summaries
did
not
offer
any
references
to
specific
methodology,
other
than
one
example
of
a
rating
system.
The
bibliography
thus
demonstrates
the
change
in
the
practices
of
public
relations
and
its
measurement
at
the
period
of
change
from
the
social
science-led
approach
to
planning
to
the
publicity-led
communications
that
have
been
identified
by
L’Etang
(2004)
and
others.
7.
But
it’s
very
difficult
Despite
the
emphasis
placed
on
measurement
by
the
IPR
in
the
UK
and
leading
US
texts,
many
pre-1980
texts
reveal
great
reluctance
by
practitioners
to
evaluate
the
outcomes
of
their
activity.
James
E.
Grunig
commented
in
1983
that
practitioners
are
“not
scientists
at
all
although
they
should
(but
few
do)
use
theories
and
research
on
public
relations
and
communications”
(p.
28).
To
illustrate
the
reluctance
of
the
times,
here
are
some
statements
drawn
from
the
literature
ranging
from
the
1930
to
the
mid-1960s.
Some
say,
like
Ivy
Lee,
that
PR
cannot
be
measured
whilst
others
like
Marston,
whose
1963
textbook
was
widely
used,
say
time
and
cost
deter
them.
“The
counselor
works
to
better
a
firm’s
reputation,
but
the
improvement
can
rarely
be
satisfactorily
measured”
(Tedlow,
1979,
p.
160
writing
about
1930s
and
1940s).
“Few
practitioners
will
claim
they
can
prove
their
efforts
have
paid
off
for
their
clients
or
companies”
(Finn,
1960,
p.
130).
“Most
public
relations
men,
faced
with
the
difficulty
and
cost
of
evaluation,
forget
it
and
get
on
with
the
next
job”
(Marston,
1963,
p.
176).
“Measuring
public
relations
effectiveness
is
only
slightly
easier
than
measuring
a
gaseous
body
with
a
rubber
band”
(Burns
W.
Roper,
cited
in
Marston,
1963,
p.
289).
In
the
UK,
views
were
very
similar.
The
first
is
from
James
Derriman,
later
a
president
of
the
IPR
in
1973–1974.
Two
others
come
from
the
most
prolific
British
writers
of
PR
texts
–
Frank
Jefkins
and
Sam
Black,
the
latter
becoming
an
honorary
professor
at
Stirling
for
his
role
in
establishing
its
MSc
in
Public
Relations.
“It
is
often
hard
to
assess
(achievement
of
objectives)
with
precision
or
identify
effects
of
public
relations”
(Derriman,
1964,
p.
198).
““Results”
is
something
of
a
dirty
word
in
PR”
(Jefkins,
1969,
p.
219).
“The
results
of
public
relations
activity
are
very
difficult
to
measure
quantitatively
.
.
.
it
may
be
uneconomic
to
devote
too
much
time
and
too
many
resources”
(Black,
1971,
p.
98).
The
reluctance
to
evaluate
was
a
feature
of
studies
of
public
relations
practice
over
coming
decades.
Watson
(1994)
found
similar
attitudes
in
a
large-scale
study
of
UK
practitioners
which
included
comments
such
as:
“PR
is
not
a
science;
most
practitioners
are
inadequate;
clients
are
too
thick,”
and
“the
best
evaluation
of
results
is
when
the
client
is
pleased,
satisfied,
happy
and
renews
the
contract.
All
else
is
meaningless”
(Appendix
2).
Although
practitioners
expressed
the
desire
to
evaluate,
the
reality
was
that
they
lacked
the
knowledge,
time
and
budget
to
undertake
the
task,
much
like
their
predecessors
30
years
earlier.
8.
1950s
and
1960s
The
Institute
of
Public
Relations
published
its
first
book
–
A
guide
to
the
practice
of
public
relations
in
1958.
Although
it
stated
that
public
relations
is
“an
essential
part
of
management”
(p.
17),
the
book
was
mostly
concerned
with
craft
aspects
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
T.
Watson
/
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx 5
such
as
writing,
media
relations,
event
creation
and
management.
It
gave
one
short
paragraph
to
monitoring
press
enquiries
and
handed
the
chapter
on
market
research
to
a
non-PR
market
research
specialist.
In
a
slightly
later
book,
then
IPR
President
Alan
Eden-Green,
writing
the
foreword
in
Ellis
and
Bowman’s
Handbook
of
Public
Relations
in
Eden-Green
(1963),
posits
PR
as
being
“primarily
concerned
with
communication”
(Ellis
&
Bowman,
1963,
foreword).
Other
texts
at
the
time
also
focus
on
processes,
but
not
planning,
measurement
or
outcomes.
In
Germany,
Albert
Oeckl
in
1964
proposed
three
methods
of
research
–
publics
and
how
they
use
media,
content
analysis
and
research
on
media
effects.
He
was
much
more
linked
to
the
Bernaysian
social
science
of
PR
than
were
UK
practitioners
(Oeckl,
1964).
However,
beyond
texts
and
articles,
Advertising
Value
Equivalents
(AVE)
was
used
to
put
a
value
on
media
coverage,
which
emphasised
the
craft
nature
of
PR.
The
first
warning
against
AVE
came
in
a
1949
edition
of
the
IPR
Journal
(J.
L’Etang,
personal
communication,
January
10,
2011).
Plackard
and
Blackmon
(1947)
also
refer
to
it
in
the
US,
with
both
indicating
that
it
was
an
established
practice
by
mid-century.
It
did
not,
however,
surface
in
professional
or
quasi-academic
literature
till
the
late
1960s.
9.
Increasing
discussion
The
late
1960s
and
the
1970s
were
periods
when
books
and
articles
addressing
public
relations
evaluation
started
to
appear.
Measuring
and
Evaluating
Public
Relations
Activities
was
published
by
the
American
Management
Association
(1968).
It
had
seven
articles
on
methods
of
measuring
public
relations
results.
It
is
notable
that
it
came
from
the
American
Manage-
ment
Association,
and
not
a
public
relations
professional
body.
Soon
after,
Robinson’s
Public
Relations
and
Survey
Research
(Robinson,
1969)
was
published.
Pavlik
says
that
“(Robinson)
predicted
that
PR
evaluation
would
move
away
from
seat-
of-the-pants
approaches
and
towards
“scientific
derived
knowledge”
(Pavlik,
1987,
p.
66).
He
added
that
Robinson
was
suggesting
practitioners
would
no
longer
rely
on
anecdotal,
subjective
measures
of
success,
such
as
feedback
from
per-
sonal
contacts
or
winning
awards;
they
“would
begin
to
use
more
systematic
measures
of
success,
primarily
social
science
methods
such
as
survey
research”
(ibid.).
Academics
then
began
taking
the
lead.
A
conference
in
1977
at
the
University
of
Maryland
chaired
by
James
Grunig,
partnering
with
AT&T,
was
followed
by
the
first
scholarly
special
issue,
‘Measur-
ing
the
Effectiveness
of
Public
Relations,’
in
Public
Relations
Review’s
Winter
1977
edition,
which
featured
papers
from
the
conference.
10.
Rise
of
PR
service
industries
US
industry
veteran
Mark
Weiner
has
recently
commented
(M.
Weiner,
personal
communication,
February
16,
2011)
that
a
key
reason
for
the
introduction
of
measurement
services
was
that
industry
growth
in
the
1960s
and
1970s
could
support
it.
By
then,
the
US
public
relations
consultancy
networks
pioneered
by
John
Hill
of
Hill
&
Knowlton
(Miller,
1999)
and
Harold
Burson
of
Burson-Marsteller
were
widening
their
spread
of
offices
and
services
to
work
for
US-owned
multi-
nationals.
They
needed
world-wide
monitoring
and
management
systems
that
gave
systematic
data
back
to
HQs.
Consumer
public
relations
rapidly
developed
in
the
1950s
and
1960s
in
the
post
war
economic
boom,
aided
by
the
widespread
access
to
television
which
had
also
fostered
advertising’s
expansion.
University
studies
which
had
started
in
the
US
in
the
1940s,
although
Edward
Bernays
claims
to
have
taught
the
first
public
relations
class
at
New
York
University
in
1923
(Bernays,
1952),
were
growing
in
North
America
and
other
countries.
These
developments
–
national
and
international
expansion
of
public
relations
activity
and
budgets,
along
with
education
and
training
to
meet
demand
–
led
to
the
emer-
gence
of
the
service
industries,
especially
in
the
measurement
of
PR
activity.
One
of
the
first
evaluators
was
PR
Data,
which
was
formed
from
an
internal
General
Electric
operation
by
Jack
Schoonover
and
the
first
to
use
computer
based
analysis
–
using
punch-cards
and
simple
programmes
(Tirone,
1977).
It
was
soon
followed
by
other
providers,
mainly
press
cuttings
agencies
which
became
evaluators.
The
UK
development
in
this
field
did
not,
however,
come
for
another
20
years.
11.
1980s
–
academic
input
Following
on
from
the
initial
conference
and
academic
journal
discussion
late
in
the
previous
decade,
US
journals
came
alive
in
the
1980s
with
papers
from
leading
academics
such
as
Glenn
Broom
(Broom
&
Dozier,
1983),
David
Dozier
(Dozier,
1984,
1985),
James
Grunig
(Grunig
and
Hickson,
1976;
Grunig,
1979,
1983).
From
the
consultancy
side,
Lloyd
Kirban
of
Burson
Marsteller
(Kirban,
1983)
and
Walter
Lindenmann
of
Ketchum
(Lindenmann,
1979,
1980)
were
prolific
and
drove
the
subject
higher
on
the
practitioner
agenda,
whilst
from
the
media
analysis
side,
Katie
Delahaye
Paine
announced
her
first
publicity
measurement
system
in
1987
and
went
on
to
establish
the
Delahaye
measurement
business.
In
the
UK,
White
(1990)
undertook
the
first
study
of
practitioner
attitudes
amongst
member
consultancies
of
the
Public
Relations
Consultants
Association
(PRCA)
and
offered
recommendations
on
‘best
practice.’
In
1990
Public
Relations
Review
had
a
seminal
special
edition
on
evaluation,
‘Using
Research
to
Plan
and
Evaluate
Public
Relations’
(Public
Relations
Review
–
Summer,
1990).
Widely
cited,
it
showed
that
measurement
and
evaluation
were
consistently
part
of
academic
and
professional
discourse.
All
these
authors
emphasised
the
need
for
public
relations
to
be
researched,
planned
and
evaluated
using
robust
social
science
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
6 T.
Watson
/
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx
techniques.
It
was
particularly
fostered
by
Broom
and
Dozier’s
influential
Research
Methods
in
Public
Relations
(Broom
&
Dozier,
1990).
12.
1990s
–
pace
increases
As
the
1990s
proceeded,
evaluation
became
a
major
professional
and
practice
issue
that
was
addressed
by
research
and
education
activity
in
many
countries
which
produced
books,
methods
of
analysis
and
proliferating
international
initiatives.
In
the
US,
the
Institute
for
Public
Relations
Research
and
Education
(now
the
Institute
for
Public
Relations,
IPR),
harnessing
Walter
Lindenmann’s
enthusiasm,
published
research
and
commentaries
on
establishing
objectives
and
assessing
results.
The
International
Public
Relations
Association
(IPRA)
published
its
Gold
Paper
No.
11:
Public
Relations
Evaluation:
Profes-
sional
Accountability
in
1994.
In
Europe,
the
German
public
relations
association
and
the
International
Communications
Consultants
Organisation
(ICCO)
held
a
pan-European
summit
on
evaluation
in
1996,
whilst
the
Swedish
PR
body,
Svenska
Informationsforening,
moved
ahead
of
the
debate
at
the
time
to
report
on
Return
on
Communication,
a
form
of
Return
on
Investment
that
considered
the
creation
of
non-financial
value
through
communications
(SPRA,
1996).
The
1990s
was
also
a
decade
when
Quality
Assurance
(QA)
approaches
to
production
and
the
BS5750
or
ISO9000
process
standards
became
part
of
management
language
and
discourse.
Companies
with
QA
certification
wanted
their
suppliers,
including
public
relations
advisers,
to
also
have
the
same
standards
of
operation.
In
the
US,
the
Six
Sigma
quality
production-
led
business
management
system
was
applied
to
public
relations
and
communication,
notably
at
Motorola
(where
it
was
developed),
General
Electric
and
other
manufacturing
majors
(Poole,
2000;
Weiner,
2004).
The
first
UK
consultancy
to
gain
BS5750
was
Countrywide
Communications
(now
Porter
Novelli)
in
1993
(P.
Hehir,
personal
communication,
April
9,
2011),
but
other
consultancies
were
slow
to
follow
as
the
new
QA
standards
were
prepared
for
production-oriented
businesses,
rather
than
service
industries
like
consultancy.
To
promote
the
discussion,
a
spin-off
from
IPRA,
the
International
Institute
for
Quality
in
Public
Relations
(IQPR)
was
formed
and
prepared
the
Quality
in
Public
Relations
paper
(Berth
&
Sjoberg,
1997).
It
included
a
section
on
measurement
and
evaluation
as
integral
to
the
management
of
a
public
relations
operation.
By
the
end
of
the
decade,
the
UK’s
Public
Relations
Consultants
Association
(PRCA)
developed
the
Consultancy
Management
Standard
(CMS)
with
the
assistance
of
a
leading
international
QA
certification
body.
This
took
the
place
of
BS5750/ISO9000
as
it
had
been
prepared
with
the
aim
of
improving
the
management
and
operations
of
consultancies,
a
different
emphasis
to
the
early
QA
certifications.
It
included
an
assessable
commitment
to
the
systematic
use
of
measurement
of
programmes,
thus
embedding
practices
within
the
consultancy
sector.
CMS
has
been
adopted
world-wide
by
industry
organisations
(PRCA,
2011).
The
late
1990s
also
saw
the
launch
of
extensive
national
campaigns
to
promote
best
practice
in
measurement
and
evaluation.
Lindenmann’s
paper
on
public
relations
measurement
was
widely
used
in
the
US.
It
established
the
terminology
of
three
stages
of
evaluation
–
Output,
Out-take
and
Outcome
–
that
are
almost
universally
used
(Lindenmann,
2006).
The
public
relations
consultancy
bodies,
PRCA
and
ICCO,
its
international
offshoot,
published
their
own
booklets
and
were
followed
by
other
industry
bodies
separately
or
cooperatively.
The
major
UK
initiative
was
PRE-fix,
a
partnership
between
PRCA
and
IPR
(UK)
with
PR
Week,
the
weekly
trade
magazine.
It
ran
for
three
years
and
was
accompanied
by
seminars,
research,
online
resources
and
best
practice
case
studies.
AMEC,
then
the
Association
of
Media
Evaluation
Companies,
was
formed
as
a
UK
trade
body.
It
is
now
the
International
Association
for
Measurement
and
Evaluation
of
Communications
with
members
in
38
countries,
which
also
indicates
the
expansion
of
the
measurement
and
media
analysis
service
industry.
In
the
US,
the
IPRRE
formed
the
Commission
on
Public
Relations
Measurement
and
Evaluation
in
1999,
which
plays
a
major
role
in
undertaking
practice
based
research
and
disseminating
it.
13.
Internet
and
social
media
From
the
mid-1990s
onwards,
the
purpose
and
value
of
the
Internet
and
then
social
media
gradually
engaged
the
interest
of
public
relations
practitioners
and
evaluators.
Paine
(1995)
was
one
of
the
first
industry
commentators
to
focus
on
monitor-
ing
internet
coverage.
She
commented
on
the
dynamic
nature
of
the
Internet:
“Information
moves
quickly
on
the
Net.
Speed
makes
the
medium
wonderfully
dynamic
and
woefully
malleable
–
one
day’s
hot
discussion
might
be
gone
tomorrow”
(p.
8).
Her
recommendations
related
to
the
pre-social
media
Internet
and
were
similar
to
existing
media
relations
measurement.
These
included
the
data
about
where
the
information
had
appeared,
subject
matter,
and
tonality.
“Better
yet,
record
and
evaluate
mentions
of
your
company
or
products
on
the
Internet
in
the
same
way
that
you
monitor
your
press
coverage”
(p.
9).
This
adaptation
or
repurposing
of
conventional
media
relations
monitoring
and
evaluation
to
online
coverage
of
organ-
isations
has
remained
the
main
method
of
measurement
(see
also
Watson
&
Noble,
2007)
until
the
advent
of
Google
and
similar
search
engines
which
offered
vastly
increased
analytical
data
from
2005
onwards.
The
predominant
media
analysis
methodology,
however,
was
enhanced
by
the
introduction
of
computerised
content
analyses
based
on
keywords
or
key
phrases.
These
offered
greater
volumes
of
media
coverage
to
be
tracked,
around
the
clock.
Pestana
and
Daniels
(2011)
characterise
the
changes
over
the
period
from
1980
to
2010
as
three
ultimately
overlapping
phases:
The
first
from
1980
to
the
present
remains
concerned
with
measurement
of
outputs
in
traditional
media
(“one
to
many”
(p.
7))
gauged
by
visibility
and
sentiment;
the
second
from
1990
to
the
present
are
outputs
and
external
data
in
traditional
and
digital
media
(“one
to
many”
(p.
7))
that
retain
visibility
and
sentiment
but
add
linkages
to
business
outcomes
such
as
sales
and
market
share;
the
third
phase
from
2005
to
the
present
is
both
outputs
and
outcomes
(using
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
T.
Watson
/
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx 7
Lindenmann
phraseology)
of
media
coverage
and
other
communication
in
traditional,
digital
and
social
media
(“many
to
many”
p.
7)).
These
invoke
market
mix
modelling
and
measurement
of
the
engagement
with
audiences
and
stakeholders
with
the
organisation
that
is
seeking
to
communicate
with
these
target
groups
and
by
others
who
chose
to
enter
into
some
form
of
dialogue
or
response.
Pestana
&
Daniels
(2011)
argue
that
the
impact
of
the
Internet
and
social
media
has
moved
measurement
and
evaluation
from
its
traditional
emphasis
on
output
measurement
to
greater
evidencing
of
outcomes
and
business
results,
as
methodology
now
offers
measurement
of
engagement,
rather
than
just
the
presentation
of
messages.
If
evidenced
in
practice
this
is
a
considerable
change
from
the
adaptive
approach
that
Paine
has
proposed
in
1995.
14.
New
century
In
the
first
decade
of
the
21st
century,
other
influences
came
upon
PR
planning,
research
and
evaluation.
Kaplan
and
Norton’s
business
book,
The
Balanced
Scorecard
(Kaplan
&
Norton,
1996)
which
proposed
greater
integration
between
organisational
functions
and
sharing
of
Key
Performance
Indicators
(KPI)
had
an
influence
on
corporate
communications.
Approaches
based
on
scorecards
(Zerfass,
2005)
have
moved
the
emphasis
of
evaluation
of
corporate
communication
away
from
the
effects
of
media
towards
the
development
of
communication
strategies
more
closely
related
to
organi-
sational
objectives
where
KPIs
are
measured,
rather
than
outputs
from
communication
activity.
There
were
further
industry
educational
initiatives
in
the
UK
with
the
CIPR
preparing
a
version
of
its
previous
document
that
targeted
media
evalu-
ation.
The
service
business
of
media
measurement
and
PR
effectiveness
evaluation
grew
rapidly,
mainly
with
corporate
clients.
The
first
decade
ended
with
the
adoption
of
The
Barcelona
Declaration
of
Measurement
Principles
at
the
European
Measurement
Summit
in
June
2010
(AMEC,
2010).
This
statement
of
seven
principles
of
measurement
of
public
relations
activity
favours
measurement
of
outcomes,
rather
than
media
results,
and
the
measurement
of
business
results
and
of
social
media,
but
rejects
AVEs
as
failing
to
indicate
the
value
of
public
relations
activity.
It
was
a
benchmark
of
basic
measurement
and
evaluation
practices
and
an
attempt
by
the
measurement
service
industry
to
define
tenets
of
media
analysis
before
addressing
the
challenges
of
both
social
media
with
its
emphasis
on
‘conversation.’
The
Barcelona
Declaration
demonstrates
that
PR
measurement
and
evaluation
is
big
service
business
and
a
long
way
from
the
local
and
regional
cuttings
agencies
of
50
to
100
years
ago.
15.
Conclusion
The
journey
of
public
relations
evaluation
appears
to
have
some
circularity
with
the
Barcelona
Declaration
that
bench-
marks
the
importance
of
setting
objectives
and
measuring
outcomes
offering
similar
thinking
to
that
of
Lee
and,
in
particular,
Bernays
in
the
1920s.
During
the
more
than
100
years
outlined
in
this
paper,
the
fascination
of
practitioners
with
media
relations
strategies
and
tactics
has
remained
consistently
prominent.
Methods
described
by
Batchelor
(1938)
and
Harlow
(1942),
such
as
frequency,
reach
and
tonality
of
media
references
are
still
widely-demanded
practices
in
measurement
and
evaluation,
although
social
media
brings
new
challenges
for
practitioners
and
the
measurement
services
companies.
How-
ever,
academic
discussion
of
measurement
and
evaluation
took
more
than
70
years
to
get
traction,
with
the
1970s
being
the
starting
point.
By
1990
the
range
of
methods
for
research
into
the
effectiveness
of
public
relations
has
been
well-established
and
excellently
presented
in
Broom
and
Dozier’s
Research
Methods
in
Public
Relations
(Broom
&
Dozier,
1990).
Yet
despite
extensive
discussion
in
academic
journals
and
books
(Broom
&
Dozier,
1990;
Stacks,
2002;
Watson
&
Noble,
2007),
little
theory
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation
has
been
developed
and
widely
accepted
although
conceptual
frame-
works
and
“yardsticks”
(Lindenmann,
2006)
have
been
offered
in
well-known
public
relations
texts
(Cutlip,
Center,
&
Broom,
2005;
Tench
&
Yeomans,
2009;
Wilcox,
Cameron,
Ault,
&
Agee,
2005)
for
many
years.
Practitioners
have
also
shown
reluctance
to
adopt
proven
methods.
As
Watson
(1994)
and
Wright,
Gaunt,
Leggetter,
&
Zerfass
(2009),
amongst
other
researchers,
have
found,
practitioners
still
talk
more
about
evaluation
than
actually
practice
it.
Gregory’s
(2001)
article,
“Public
relations
and
evaluation:
does
the
reality
match
the
rhetoric?”
is
an
appropriate
rhetorical
question
and
summary
of
the
situation
after
a
century
of
public
relations
practice.
Perhaps
this
signifies
an
immature
profession,
which
is
unconfident
in
its
practices.
One
example
is
the
widespread
use
of
AVE,
which
has
been
condemned
as
invalid
since
the
late
1940s
and
is
damned
by
the
Barcelona
Declaration
of
2010.
Yet
it
was
found
to
be
in
use
by
more
than
40%
of
respondents
in
an
international
survey
in
2009
(Wright
et
al.,
2009).
The
evolution
of
AVE
and
it
beginnings
(some
time
before
1947)
is
a
subject
for
further
research
as
this
initial
study
has
not
identified
the
source(s).
Perhaps
the
greater
use
of
social
media
within
public
relations,
with
its
emphasis
on
engagement,
will
move
practitioners
and
evaluators
away
from
AVE
to
measurements
that
indicate
the
creation
of
value
and
of
dialogue.
The
limitations
of
this
paper,
which
uses
a
timeline
narrative,
are
that
it
provides
mainly
description
of
a
century
of
development
within
the
length
constraints
of
an
academic
paper.
However,
the
paper
sets
out
the
story
of
the
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation
which
appears
to
parallel
the
development
of
the
main
procedures
and
growth
of
public
relations
as
an
international
communication
practice.
Now
that
the
‘length’
has
been
established,
more
research
can
be
devoted
to
the
width.
As
well,
the
paper
has
focused
on
the
United
States
and
the
United
Kingdom
with
only
passing
reference
to
Germany
and
none
at
all
to
other
countries
in
which
public
relations
started
in
the
first
half
of
the
20th
century.
Future
research
should
also
address
these
other
national
and
communication
cultures.
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
8 T.
Watson
/
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx
References
AMEC.
Available
from:
http://amecorg.com
Accessed
17.11.11.
AMEC
International
Association
for
the
Measurement
and
Evaluation
of
Communications.
(2010).
Barcelona
declaration
of
measurement
principles.
London:
AMEC.
Available
from:
http://amecorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Barcelona
Principles
for
PR
Measurement.pdf
Accessed
17.11.11.
American
Management
Association.
(1968).
Measuring
and
evaluating
public
relations
activities.
New
York:
AMA,
Management
Bulletin
No.
110.
Batchelor,
B.
(1938).
Profitable
public
relations.
New
York:
Harper
and
Brothers.
Bernays,
E.
L.
(1923).
Crystallizing
public
opinion.
New
York:
Boni
&
Liveright.
Bernays,
E.
L.
(1952).
Public
relations.
Norman,
OH:
University
of
Oklahoma
Press.
Berth,
K.,
&
Sjoberg,
G.
(1997).
Quality
in
public
relations:
Quality
public
relations
series
No.
1.
Copenhagen:
The
International
Institute
for
Quality
in
Public
Relations.
Black,
S.
(1971).
The
role
of
public
relations
in
management.
London:
Pitman.
Brebner,
J.
H.
(1949).
Public
relations
and
publicity.
London:
The
Institute
of
Public
Relations.
Broom,
G.
M.,
&
Dozier,
D.
M.
(1983).
An
overview:
Evaluation
research
in
public
relations.
Public
Relations
Quarterly,
28,
5–8.
Broom,
G.
M.,
&
Dozier,
D.
M.
(1990).
Using
research
in
public
relations.
Englewood
Cliff,
NJ:
Prentice
Hall.
Commission
for
Public
Relations
Measurement
and
Evaluation.
Available
from:
www.instituteforpr.com
Accessed
31.03.11.
Cutlip,
S.
M.
(1965).
A
public
relations
bibliography
(2nd
ed.).
Madison
&
Milwaukee:
University
of
Wisconsin
Press.
Cutlip,
S.
M.
(1994).
The
unseen
power:
Public
relations,
a
history.
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum
Associates.
Cutlip,
S.
M.,
&
Center,
A.
(1952).
Effective
public
relations
(1st
ed.).
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice
Hall.
(4th
printing
1955)
Cutlip,
S.
M.,
Center,
A.,
&
Broom,
G.
M.
(2005).
Effective
public
relations
(9th
ed.).
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice
Hall.
Derriman,
J.
(1964).
Public
relations
in
business
management.
London:
University
of
London
Press.
Dozier,
D.
M.
(1984).
Program
evaluation
and
the
roles
of
practitioners.
Public
Relations
Review,
10(2),
13–21.
Dozier,
D.
M.
(1985).
Planning
and
evaluation
in
public
relations
practice.
Public
Relations
Review,
11
(Summer).
Eden-Green,
A.
(1963).
Foreword.
In
N.
Ellis,
&
P.
Bowman
(Eds.),
The
handbook
of
public
relations.
London:
George
Harrap
&
Co.
Ewen,
S.
(1996).
PR!
A
social
history
of
spin.
New
York:
Basic
Books.
Finn,
D.
(1960).
Public
relations
and
management.
New
York:
Reinhold
Publishing.
Gregory,
A.
(2001).
Public
relations
and
evaluation:
Does
the
reality
match
the
rhetoric?
Journal
of
Marketing
Communication,
7(3),
171–189.
Griese,
N.
L.
(2001).
Arthur
W.
Page:
Publisher,
public
relations
pioneer,
patriot.
Atlanta:
Anvil
Publishers.
Griswold,
G.,
&
Griswold,
D.
(1948).
Your
public
relations.
New
York:
Funk
and
Wagnalls.
Grunig,
J.
E.,
&
Hickson,
R.
H.
(1976).
An
evaluation
of
academic
research
in
public
relations.
Public
Relations
Review,
2,
31–43.
Grunig,
J.
E.
(1979).
The
status
of
public
relations
research.
Public
Relations
Quarterly,
20,
5–8.
Grunig,
J.
E.
(1983).
Basic
research
provides
knowledge
that
makes
evaluation
possible.
Public
Relations
Quarterly,
28(3),
28–32.
Harlow,
R.
F.
(1942).
Public
relations
in
war
and
peace.
New
York:
Harper
and
Brothers.
Hiebert,
R.
E.
(1966).
Courtier
to
the
crowd:
The
story
of
Ivy
Lee
and
the
development
of
public
relations.
Ames:
Iowa
State
University
Press.
International
Public
Relations
Association.
(1994).
Gold
Paper
No.
11:
Public
relations
evaluation:
Professional
accountability.
London:
IPRA.
IPR
Institute
of
Public
Relations.
(1958).
A
guide
to
the
practice
of
public
relations.
London:
Newman
Neame.
Jefkins,
F.
(1969).
Press
relations
practice.
London:
Intertext.
Kaplan.,
R.
S.,
&
Norton,
D.
P.
(1996).
The
balanced
scorecard:
Translating
strategy
into
action.
Harvard
College:
Harvard
Business
Press.
Kirban,
L.
(1983).
Showing
what
we
do
makes
a
difference.
Public
Relations
Quarterly,
28(3),
22–28.
Lamme,
M.
O.,
&
Russell,
K.
M.
(2010).
Removing
the
spin:
Towards
a
new
theory
of
public
relations
history.
Journalism
&
Communication
Monographs,
11(4).
Lee,
I.
L.
(1925).
Publicity:
Some
of
the
things
it
is
and
is
not.
New
York:
Industries
Publishing.
L’Etang,
J.
(2004).
Public
relations
in
Britain.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.
Lindenmann,
W.
K.
(1979).
The
missing
link
in
public
relations
research.
Public
Relations
Review,
5(1),
26–36.
Lindenmann,
W.
K.
(1980).
Hunches
no
longer
suffice.
Public
Relations
Journal,
1980(June),
10.
Lindenmann,
W.
K.
(2005).
Putting
PR
measurement
and
evaluation
into
historical
perspective.
Gainesville,
FL:
Institute
for
Public
Relations.
Available
from:
http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/historical-perspective-measurement/
Accessed
14.03.11
Lindenmann,
W.
K.
(2006).
Public
relations
research
for
planning
and
evaluation.
Gainesville,
FL:
Institute
for
Public
Relations.
Available
from:
http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/pr-research-for-planning-and-evaluation/
Accessed
02.11.11
Lippmann,
W.
(1922).
Public
opinion.
New
York:
Macmillan.
Marston,
J.
(1963).
The
nature
of
public
relations.
New
York:
McGraw-Hill.
McElreath,
M.
P.
(1980).
Priority
research
questions
for
public
relations
for
the
1980.
New
York:
Foundation
for
Public
Relations
Research
and
Education.
McElreath,
M.
P.
(1989).
Priority
research
questions
in
the
field
of
public
relations
for
the
1990:
Trends
over
the
past
ten
years
and
predictions
for
the
future.
In
Paper
presented
at
the
meeting
of
the
Speech
Communication
Association
San
Francisco.
Miller,
K.
S.
(1999).
The
voice
of
business.
Chapel
Hill,
NC:
The
University
of
North
Carolina
Press.
Oeckl,
A.
(1964).
Handbuch
der
public
relations.
Munich:
Süddeutscher
Verlag.
Paine,
K.
(1995).
Monitoring
publicity
on
the
Internet.
Public
Relations
Tactics,
2(8),
8–9.
Pavlik,
J.
(1987).
Public
relations:
What
research
tells
us.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage.
Pestana,
R.,
&
Daniels,
M.
(2011).
Lisbon
summit
valid
metrics
workshop
3.
In
3rd
European
Summit
on
Measurement
Lisbon,
Portugal,
June
8–10,.
Available
from:
http://amecorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Lisbon-Summit-Vaild-Metrics-Workshop-3-June-2011.pdf
Accessed
02.11.11
Plackard,
D.
H.,
&
Blackmon,
C.
(1947).
Blueprint
for
public
relations.
New
York:
McGraw-Hill.
PRE-fix.
Available
from:
www.pre-fix.org.uk
Accessed
31.03.11.
Poole,
A.
(2000).
Six
Sigma
–
Communication’s
perfect
role.
Strategic
Communication
Management,
4(2),
34–37.
Public
Relations
Consultants
Association.
(2011).
Consultancy
management
standard.
Available
from:
http://www.prca.org.uk/StandardsinPR
Accessed
31.03.11
Public
Relations
Review
(1990).
Using
research
to
plan
and
evaluate
public
relations
(p.
2).
Summer
1990,
xvi.
Robinson,
E.
J.
(1969).
Public
relations
and
survey
research.
New
York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
SPRA
Swedish
Public
Relations
Association.
(1996).
Return
on
communications.
Stockholm:
Swedish
Public
Relation
Association
(Svenska
Informations-
forening).
Stacks,
D.
W.
(2002).
Primer
of
public
relations
research.
New
York:
Guildford.
Synnott,
G.,
&
McKie,
D.
(1997).
International
issues
in
PR:
Researching
research
and
prioritizing
priorities.
Journal
of
Public
Relations
Research,
9(4),
259–282.
Tedlow,
R.
S.
(1979).
Keeping
the
corporate
image:
Public
relations
and
business
1900–1950.
Greenwich,
CT:
JAI
Press.
Tench,
R.,
&
Yeomans,
L.
(2009).
Exploring
public
relations
(2nd
ed.).
Harlow:
FT
Prentice
Hall.
Tirone,
J.
F.
(1977).
Measuring
the
Bell
System’s
public
relations.
Public
Relations
Review,
3(4),
21–38.
Tye,
L.
(1998).
The
father
of
spin:
Edward
L.
Bernays
and
the
birth
of
public
relations.
New
York:
Henry
Holt.
Watson,
T.
(1994).
Public
relations
evaluation:
Nationwide
survey
of
practice
in
the
United
Kingdom.
In
Paper
presented
to
the
International
Public
Relations
Research
Symposium
Bled,
Slovenia,
July.
Watson,
T.
(2008).
Public
relations
research
priorities:
A
Delphi
study.
Journal
of
Communication
Management,
12(2),
104–123.
Watson,
T.,
&
Noble,
P.
(2007).
Evaluating
public
relations
(2nd
ed.).
London:
Kogan
Page.
Weiner,
M.
(2004).
Six
Sigma
applied
research
for
improved
public
relations.
Communications
World,
21(1),
26–29.
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Watson,
T.
The
evolution
of
public
relations
measurement
and
evaluation.
Public
Relations
Review
(2012),
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.018
G
Model
PUBREL-1003;
No.
of
Pages
9
T.
Watson
/
Public
Relations
Review
xxx (2012) xxx–
xxx 9
White,
J.
(1990).
Evaluation
in
public
relations
practice.
Cranfield
Institute
of
Management/PRCA
(Unpublished).
Wilcox,
D.
L.,
Cameron,
G.
T.,
Ault,
P.
H.,
&
Agee,
W.
K.
(2005).
Public
relations
strategies
and
tactics
(7th
ed.).
Boston,
MA:
Allyn
&
Bacon
Pearson
Education.
Wilder,
R.
H.,
&
Buell,
K.
L.
(1923).
Publicity:
A
manual
for
the
use
of
business,
civic
or
social
service
organisations.
New
York:
Ronald
Press.
Wright,
D.
G.,
Gaunt,
R.,
Leggetter,
B.,
&
Zerfass,
A.
(2009).
Global
survey
of
communications
measurement
2009.
London:
Benchpoint.
Zerfass,
A.
(2005).
The
corporate
communications
scorecard
–A
framework
for
managing
and
evaluating
communication
strategies.
In
12th
International
Public
Relations
Research
Symposium
(Bledcom)
1–3
July
2005,
Lake
Bled,
Slovenia.
