This weekend, I read a few articles on public relations research that got me thinking (I think that’s what my professors were going for ) The general consensus is that public relations research is often limited to the evaluation of the products of short-term communication programs when what it should be doing is evaluating the products, processes, and the outcomes of both short- and long-term programs (Grunig & Grunig, 2001; Michaelson & Macleod; 2007). Of course, this statement assumes that organizations are conducting research in the first place…

Social media ROI has been an ongoing debate ever since those who were dabbling in the space realized that they needed to come up with something measurable in order to convince reluctant executives that social media was a worthwhile investment of their organizations’ time and resources. Unfortunately, number of page views, clicks, conversions, tweets, mentions, fans, blog posts, etc. are all examples of products, not processes, not outcomes, and not necessarily long-term.

Processes refer to things like relationship-building and outcomes refers to the quality of those relationships (Grunig, & Grunig, 2001).

A few days ago, my friend @AlanWeinkrantz tweeted:

The types of data we are used to capturing are numbers; we need to capture conversations and more importantly, streams.

I couldn’t agree more. I also think that words like “measurement” and “metrics” are stifling. I agree with scholars and think “research” and “evaluation” are a better fit. The idea is that organizations are conducting investigation that is purposeful, systematic and rigorous in nature and that they will use the results of said investigation to evaluate strategies and tactics.

So I’m sorry for using “measurement” to title this post. Dang SEO keywords, rankings, and the very vicious circle I’m trying to argue against.

To clarify, I don’t think measuring products is a waste of time. I think we need to pay more attention to the processes and outcomes dimensions of social media research and evaluation. If we conceptualize social media as what lies at the heart of the Web 2.0 phenomenon – user collaboration, networking, sharing, and interaction; then it makes sense that in addition to counting the number of “X”, we research the quality of what is being said about our organizations’ efforts, programs and campaigns. Because quality is in the eye of the beholder, interpretative, and subjective in nature; the key is to know who you are, what you’re looking for and what you will do when you find it.

Super Bowl XLIV is in just a couple of hours… I’m SO VERY MUCH looking forward to Brand Bowl. The companies that spent gazillions of dollars on those commercials are going to get all sorts of ratings charts, bar graphs, and spreadsheets with numbers on them in the morning. The numbers will be huge and the companies may decide to buy ads in next year’s Super Bowl… But the kind of qualitative feedback they will get from listening to viewer’s *actual* conversations might make them reevaluate their approach (think Pepsi).

REFERENCES

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2001). Guidelinesfor Formative and Evaluative Research in Public Affairs: A Report for the Department of Energy Office of Science. Department of Communication University of Maryland.

Michaelson, D., & Macleod, S. (2007). The Application of “Best Practices” in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation Systems. Public Relations Journal. 1 (1).

Image credit: http://futureperfectpublishing.com/2009/02/

It is here.

My first big project of my first semester as a public relations graduate student is here and I’m excited to dive right into it. The only problem is I need your help.

I will be conducting a single case study research on the topic of digital media and organization management. Specifically, I would like to study an organization that has seen its internal organizational structure change due to the addition of social and digital media-related functions to the organization’s communication department.

• Have organizational hierarchies shifted?
• Has the managerial role of the top communicator changed due to the new technical skills he or she is required to have for the job?
• Have technically adept professionals (web developers, Twitterers, social networking experts, etc.) been hired to take on the new digital media functions?
• Do internal communications take place using new media (Twitter, Yammer, Facebook, Mobile, Wikis, Forums, etc.)?

This is me brainstorming research questions to warm up before I get started, but if you know of (or you are!) an organization that is using social and digital media, particularly in the communications or public relations function, please email me at anarvaez [at] umd [dot] edu or send me a tweet @andinarvaez. I would love to find out more about your organization and the changes taking place within.

Thank you in advance!

Photo credit: Mark Rauterkus

3dphb5ri8m

To mean to or not to mean to, that is the question

During my first class as a graduate student at University of Maryland, Introduction to Graduate Study in Communication, we discussed articles defining the field in general written by George Gerbner, Gerald Miller and Thomas Nilsen. Miller’s work in particular stirred the class into intense conversation about intentional and unintentional communication and whether the latter should be considered communication at all.

I’ll save you the suspense and say that for the purposes of communication research, the answer is mainly no.

According to Miller, “In the main, communication has as its central interest those behavioral situations in which a source transmits a message to a receiver(s) with a conscious intent to affect the latter’s behaviors.” ( Miller, 92)

Key words (in case Google is reading this): conscious and intent.

Miller states that by distinguishing intentional communication from unintentional communication for the purpose of research, we are making a distinction between other fields such as behavioral science, which concerns itself with an organism’s response to stimuli – whether intended or unintended – and communication. Sure, as @LetterGirl pointed out, communication messages are never separated from the unintentional effects they inevitably have on their audiences but these cases are “outside of the central interest of communication.” (Miller, 93)

Should they be?

If you are reading this you are familiar and most likely believe in social media. Although we have yet to define what that means exactly (@JasonFalls wrote a great blog post on that) I think we can agree that social media is a particularly purposeful type of communication. And yet, because social media is in constant flux and relative state of emergence, early adapting communication professionals are hitting the ground running with it and adjusting as they go. In the process, communication is happening unintentionally, intentionally. Because we don’t know where a certain message delivered via social media will take us is precisely why we go for it – we are building precedents

Example: Communities

I know a lot more about building communities using social media tools and channels thanks to people like Chris Brogan and Amber Naslund. These communities are getting more sophisticated (i.e. A Starbucks Facebook Page vs. My Starbucks Idea) meaning their intent is more clearly defined, meaning strategy is more carefully developed. However, I think a large portion of social media initiatives are still rather experimental, thus, the lack of intention is intended for the sake of finding our what might happen when you put your message in the public’s hands. If you are an organization and you are taking this risk, let me know. I’m a grad student hungry for research material. If, on the other hand, you are an organization not taking this risk, please reconsider.

Miller’s world = rocked?

References:

Gerald A. Miller, “On Defining Communication: Another Stab.” In Journal of Communication 16:88-98, 1966, p. 92. 14.

Flickr user Kathy S