– What’s effective, what’s not?

I was recently asked what constitutes effective PR? It’s a fair question, but it took some answering. What example could I hold up and what might it look like? A bundle of positive news clippings? A torrent of gushing tweets? Favourable blog chatter? A voluminous leaflet drop?

Who knows, a case study of PR effectiveness might contain all these things. But it won’t answer the question. It’s easy to spotlight tactics, but how do they relate to strategy?

In my mind effective PR boils down to how well PR addressed the problem that got the PR agency through the door in the first place.

Just what problem was it designed to solve? Did it work?

In some cases assessment is obvious. For a pharmaceutical company the goal might be securing Pharmac funding for a new drug treatment. The only measure of effectiveness is funding.

In another health sector example, just look at the PR thrashing Lab Tests has recently suffered (I wonder if DML has PR people working in the background, fuelling the fires of discontent. Very effective).

I don’t think there is a blanket definition of effective PR, because, like any marketing communication, goals take many forms.

Broadly, you might take a snapshot of the bank of goodwill.

A bank balance of feelings held towards your brand.

Sometimes you mess up and a withdrawal is made.

So everyone needs to maintain a healthy balance.

In Lab Tests’ case I think they started at zero and have made massive withdrawals.

Luckily for them there’s no customer alternative (not yet, anyway) so just because goodwill has gone that won’t ruin the business - only the CEO’s career.

No straight answer.

But there’s no single problem.