Posted by Milos Sugovic
2009 is long gone and the results of your Q4 PR efforts are finally in. Let’s say you had 100 media placements during this time period and you want to know how you did. Before you even read the executive summary of the PR measurement report, what can you expect? The good, the bad, or the mediocre?
The correct answer is: all of the above.
But many of us fall in this trap where our expectations are shaped by extreme events: “We had a great hit in the NYT this quarter. That means we did great!” or “The WSJ article ripped us apart, we are dreading the report findings.” We tend to focus too much on one or two good or bad eggs out of a whole basket, and wrongfully so. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s important to identify and be mindful of the outliers, but if you’re measuring the overall success of a PR initiative, it’s the central tendency of the effort that really matters.
To illustrate, let’s go back to my initial question: If you had 100 media mentions in Q4 of 2009, what should your expectation be? I can bet you that, on average, you’ll see the following: 16 poor hits, 68 mediocre hits, and 16 exceptional hits. How do I know this? It’s not magic; it’s called the normal distribution.