Measurement is the only way to do “PR for PR” and ammunition for industry’s growth! However, for decades, an unhealthy misconception has quietly hindered this progress. Most organisations continue to equate PR Monitoring with PR Measurement. This confusion has not only restricted the growth of PR Measurement but also distorted the conversations around it. We need to realise that PR Monitoring is just a subset, not the whole.
As a result, too many dashboards are cluttered with vanity metrics. Too many reports are focused on tactical activity tracking. Organisations have missed the opportunity to connect Corporate Communication ERPs (Efforts, Resources, and Processes) to actual brand and business outcomes. Even worse, this misconception distracts leadership from asking the foundational question: Are we truly ready to measure PR? Do we even have the right ERPs in place?
In our work with communication teams across sectors, we’ve found that over 95% of corporates unknowingly blur the line between monitoring and measurement. They believe they are “doing measurement” when all they are doing is tracking media coverage.
The obsession with Share of Voice (SOV) is a prime example. Even if an organisation’s PR SOV Rank is #1, there is no guarantee it will convert to brand trust, reputation strength, or business outcomes. There are multiple ways to manipulate and achieve Share of Voice ranks.
It’s time to break that illusion.
Monitoring ≠ Measurement
Let’s be clear — monitoring is important. It is a subset of a bigger whole. It tells you what is happening — or more precisely, what has already happened. It tracks media mentions, tonality, volume, sentiment, geographies, journalist names, and more. These inputs are useful for observing coverage patterns, flagging risk signals, and managing tactical responses. But that’s where it pretty much ends.
Monitoring is input-focused. It answers the question: “What happened?”
On the other hand, Measurement answers: “Why did we communicate — and did we achieve it?” Yes, “WHY” becomes the most important question in a measurement framework. True measurement goes beyond logging coverage. It assesses whether communication efforts are shifting stakeholder perceptions, building trust, reinforcing brand values, or driving brand & business scores.
To borrow an analogy: Monitoring is the speedometer. Measurement tells you whether you’re on the right road.
Why This Misunderstanding Persists
This confusion exists because: Monitoring tools are widely accessible, creating the illusion of insight
The industry is historically comfortable with activity-based reporting. CXOs and PR teams lack alignment on what truly matters. Consultancy-client relationships are driven by deliverables, not outcomes.
The result? Organisations invest in ornate dashboards that look impressive in monthly reviews — but reveal little about reputation strength, stakeholder movement, or business alignment.
This isn’t PR Measurement. It’s data decoration.
What Real PR Measurement Looks Like
Measurement begins when an organisation:
- Defines clear reputation and communication goals, aligned to business priorities
- Tracks not just media outputs but brand recall, admiration, trust, and CXO KRAs
- Prepares and rolls out strong ERPs (Efforts, Resources, Processes) across CXO, CorpComm, Consultancy and Measurement Partner
- Each desk across the communication assembly line works on targets, KRAs, KPIs, and is willing to take accountability
- Dares to stop tracking what does not matter — and double down on what does
It is not about more data. It is about meaningful data — the kind that drives decisions, not just defends activity.
As PR professionals, we all want to earn our place in the boardroom. But that won’t happen as long as we mistake noise for progress. We need to ask: Do these data cuts have any influence on brand and business scores? Are we truly measuring PR, or are we just monitoring it? Until this becomes clear, PR will continue to chase recognition it hasn’t earned, while overlooking the one thing that will earn it: Meaningful, strategic, outcome-driven measurement.
The views and opinions published here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the publisher.
