The science of PR?

A client asked me today if the discipline of PR is considered an art or science. I paused for a few seconds before responding. I'd never really thought about it before.

I told her that public relations is more of an art than a science. But, I now wonder if the actual answer to this question is: When it's done right, it can truly be considered both.

My initial thought (and point of view) was that because no one can guarantee if a specific product, service, corporate story or entire campaign will be of interest to reporters or any other target audience, it's really difficult to prove that science is involved.

Plus, there are always so many outside (hard to plan) factors that come into play in our campaigns that impact success or failure. For example, try generating a lot of broadcast coverage for a client's great growth story announcement on the same day that a major scandal rocks the White House. Any and all interest will immediately vanish as the networks and cable channels use every resource to cover the ‘more important’ news of the day.

No, factors like breaking controversial news coming to bear, personal preference of stories or even other problems that could be impacting a client's larger reputation make it hard to predict with any scientific odds as to whether the media, digital world or larger public relations campaign will pick up traction. This is because, our world is so focused on subjective, human nature (how well do we tell our stories and will they resonate with key constituents?).

Where the science should come in is how we can leverage real facts, statistics and truths to create impressions and persuade audiences that our story should be believed. The other clearly scientific part of our work is our ability to measure results. The right measurement approach is not arbitrary or subjective at all. Just the same way an accountant would measure the results of how well a company fared financially in any given year, PR professionals can provide real numbers on how well particular components of a campaign worked. Just as importantly, we can show whether a campaign or program demonstrates objective outcomes that are worthy of the investment put in.

So, what do you think now? Art or science? I'm still stuck in the middle, believing it can be both. Now, I'm going to call my client to change the answer...

Comments

[Steve]

Not sure I'd use accounting as an analogy of how measurement can be scientific...accounting is a black art, more akin to divining the future use goat entrails than chemistry or astrophysics. After all, if accounting had any precision and reliability, wouldn't we actually be able to know what assets and businesses are worth?

There's a great accounting joke: a company CEO is interviewing for a new CFO. He interviews three candiates and asks each one, "What is 2 + 2?"

The first candidate confidently and instantly answers, "4."

The second pulls out his netbook and runs a spreadsheet to double check his conclusion before answering "4."

The third--who gets the job--closes the door, shuts the windows and draws the shades, turns out the lights, leans in close and whispers, "What do you need it to be?"

[Sean Williams]

Sorry to be so very tardy in weighing in. As the Institute for PR's tagline is "the science behind the art of Public Relations," (discl. I'm a member of the measurement commission...) -- I believe it is both.

Too often, we ignore the science part -- and yet, for a lot of executives, that's the part that gives us the most credibility. We make too many decisions based on our gut, and not enough on data. Yet, we should have the skills and the tools available to use research to build our plans and measurement and evaluation to examine the outcomes.

Making good decisions requires access to good information -- every business person knows that and takes it as an axiom.

The science of PR is rooted in communication and sociological theory -- in marketing and shopper behavioral science, and broadly in social science, generally.

The prevailing theories in PR (excellence, co-creationist and relationship) are explaining why we recommend what we do -- if only we'll embrace them.

[ed]

Sean,

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that much of what we do should be based on real metrics and research...which does bring the scientific part into this.