Campaign Excellence By Catherine B. Ahles, APR, Fellow PRSA Campaign Excellence
A Survey of Silver Anvil Award Winners Compares
Current PR Practice With Planning, Campaign Theory Reprint from Public Relations Strategist, Summer 2003 Each year, thousands of organizations across the United States develop and implement PR campaigns. Some of these campaigns fail. Some are modestly successful, and some achieve smashing success. Each year, some 650 of these campaigns are submitted for consideration for a Silver Anvil Award, PRSA's recognition of the very best in strategic PR planning and implementation. Of these, about 45 will be awarded the profession's highest recognition. What makes these campaigns so outstanding? Are there common characteristics among Silver Anvil Award-winning campaigns? And can they be identified, interpreted and used to help professionals produce better campaigns for their companies and clients? These are the questions that a 2002 study of Silver Anvil-winning campaigns from 2000 and 2001 sought to answer. This study, which I conducted with Courtney C. Bosworth, Ph.D., assistant professor of advertising and public relations at Florida International University, compares current PR practices in the profession with PR planning and campaign theory. Adding to the study are the observations of some of the profession's leading practitioners - people who judge Silver Anvil entries and, as a result, see the best and worst in PR programming today. The results are revealing. Although every campaign has practical constraints and technical flaws, campaigns with certain characteristics - notably thorough research and benchmarking, clear objectives, research-based strategies, and documented results - have a good chance of rising to the highest level of campaign excellence. This study of Silver Anvil winners reveals the most common campaign-planning practices of this elite group, as well as shortcomings even great campaigns share that the profession should address in the future. The Study
The purpose of the study was to determine if there are any common characteristics of effective PR campaigns. A content analysis of all aspects of PR campaigns was conducted, looking at primary and secondary research methods used, objectives set, communications tactics implemented and output and outcome evaluation methods reported. In all, some 121 variables typically present in PR campaigns were assessed, using key words and phrases appearing in the two-page summaries of the campaigns. A random sample of 33 campaigns was analyzed in depth out of winning entries. The campaigns were distributed among the 15 Silver Anvil categories, and among subcategories that included business products, business services, government, associations/nonprofit organizations and partnerships. Budgets: Myths vs. Realities
There's no question that big-budget programs are well represented among Silver Anvil-winning campaigns. But, according to Lew Carter, managing director for affiliate relations worldwide for Manning, Selvage & Lee, what counts is not the size of the budget, but the way it is used. When asked what distinguishes a great campaign from a typical one, he says, "innovative strategies and the efficient use of budget." The analysis of winning campaigns bears this out. The largest number of winning entries (29 percent) are not in the highest budget category studied. They are in the $100,000-$199,000 budget range - a healthy expenditure but not overly large, especially since most of these campaigns spanned large geographic regions and used innovative tactics to stretch their dollars. The second-highest category is programs of $500,000 and above (25 percent - these tended to be national or global in scope), while programs in the $300,000-$399,000 category rank third (12 percent). Research: Critical to Building Strategy Judges say that too many campaigns lack solid research.
"I've seen campaigns that seem to contradict the research," says Jennifer Acord, regional manager for public relations and media events for Avon Products Inc. "The best campaigns use research to develop the objectives, create the strategy and provide clear benchmarks for evaluation." Mitch Head, APR, Fellow PRSA, managing director for Golin/Harris Atlanta and former chair of the Silver Anvil Committee, has also noticed the lack of research. "Everyone does tactics well," he says. "To me, a great campaign is one that has a great nugget of research that leads to a great strategic approach." What types of research do award-winning campaigns depend on? Top campaigns depend on primary research techniques that involve personal contact with target audiences. Interviews with, and observations of, key audiences are the most popular form of primary research (65 percent of campaigns used this technique), while telephone surveys rank second (57 percent), focus groups rank third (38 percent), and impersonal mail surveys a distant fourth (12 percent). Internet surveys are used in only 6 percent of campaigns. Fax surveys are definitely out of favor - no campaign reported using this technique. With secondary research, literature searches (44 percent) and competitive analysis (42 percent) rank as the most frequently used techniques. Used with less frequency are archival research (25 percent), syndicated databases (24 percent), organizational research (24 percent), media audits (22 percent) and sales and market share data (22 percent). General online research is used in 19 percent of campaigns. When it comes to examining audiences, half of the winning campaigns use demographic profiles. Thirty-three percent use psychographic profiles, while only 13 percent report using geographic profiles. Experimental research is done with less frequency. Messages are tested in 37 percent of winning campaigns, while specific communications vehicles are tested in 18 percent of campaigns, media testing occurs in 13 percent of campaigns and products are tested in 6 percent of campaigns. Benchmarking: Key to Proving Results In order to attribute an outcome to the PR campaign, the campaign must be benchmarked. However, after studying the type of benchmarking research typically done prior to the launch of a campaign, even some of the top campaigns came up short. "The thing that distinguishes the great campaigns is that they 'move the needle' - and are able to clearly show that it is public relations that did the heavy lifting," says Christopher K. Veronda, APR, manager of communications and public affairs for Eastman Kodak Company and a longtime Silver Anvil judge. Only 45 percent of campaigns benchmark awareness prior to launch. This is significant because 79 percent of the campaigns seek to increase awareness, meaning 34 percent of the campaigns seeking to increase awareness fail to establish their starting point. Other types of benchmark research done include benchmarking perceptions (41 percent benchmarked perceptions, while 63 percent of campaigns sought to change perceptions), attitudes (40 percent benchmarked/12 percent sought to change) and opinions (27 percent benchmarked/28 percent sought to change). Objectives: What Are We Trying to Do?
The most important aspect of a campaign is the objective, says Gerard F. Corbett, APR, Fellow PRSA, chairman of PRSA's 2003 Honors and Awards Committee and vice president of Hitachi America, Ltd. "You need to identify where you want to be at the end of the day and what needs to be accomplished when all is said and done," he says. Four out of five Silver Anvil campaigns studied sought to change behavior. And yet, in order to change behavior, a hierarchy of effects must occur that involves the creation of awareness, informing and educating audiences, changing opinions (persuading) and changing attitudes. The campaigns studied did not systematically set multiple objectives to reflect the process of behavior change. Although 82 percent had behavior-based objectives and 79 percent had awareness- and visibility-based objectives, only 28 percent had opinion-based objectives and only 12 percent had attitude-based objectives. Practitioners might consider working backward - identifying the behavior objective for the campaign, then thinking through the attitude-change, opinion-change and awareness-change objectives necessary to produce the behavior. How Well Are Objectives Written?
Judges agree that poorly written objectives are one of the top reasons campaigns are eliminated from Silver Anvil competition. Among the ones that win, however, what does the study find? Winning campaigns still reveal gaps that should be addressed by the profession. While 96 percent show a clear tie to the organization's mission and goals and 75 percent specify the nature of the desired change, only 43 percent specify the time frame for the change and only 35 percent specify the amount of change sought. In order for objectives to be adequately expressed and, ultimately, an outcome to be measured, all four elements must be present. "Many losing Silver Anvil entries did not have the kind of objectives that can later be measured and evaluated," says Catherine Pacheco, APR, president of Pacheco Rodriguez Public Relations. "Once we read the first half of the entry and find this wanting, we know the last half will be worse. After all, how can you possibly measure the success of a campaign if you do not clearly specify what you are out to achieve?" Measuring Results
While the results are the most important aspect of a good campaign, judges say that too often entries will only demonstrate the number of clips, meetings held, and the like, instead of evaluating the impact of the program and actions taken by relevant audiences. It is accepted in the profession today that assessing bottom-line results, or outcomes, is more important than assessing campaign activities, or outputs. The study shows a wide variety of both types of evaluation taking place. Top output evaluation methods include documentation of messages placed in the media (73 percent of campaigns), documentation of participation in events or activities (62 percent), documentation of the number of campaign events implemented (52 percent) and documentation of content of messages placed (50 percent). "I see thinly veiled attempts (in losing entries) to gauge the success of a campaign solely based on the number of news clips that are generated," says Pacheco. "If it's one of several markers, that's great, but to call a campaign a best practice, it better contain other measurements of success than just clips." In the more important arena of outcome evaluation, 87 percent of campaigns document behavior change. However, only 24 percent document attitude change and only 18 percent document opinion change - both necessary precursors of behavior change, unless a latent desire to behave in the desired direction already exists in the target audiences. This suggests that the profession should pay closer attention to evaluating opinion and attitude change after a campaign is implemented, in order to more fully understand if the behavior was produced as the result of communication effects or some other factor. To do so is a struggle, however, when companies or clients, satisfied with the results of a campaign, will not offer additional funds for follow-up research. Practitioners should be prepared to argue that such research will add to the company's knowledge base and, in the long run, pay off with more efficient use of dollars in future campaigns. Interestingly, 75 percent of campaigns document that the audience received the intended message and 67 percent document that the audience understood the message, but only 12 percent document that the audience retained the message. This suggests more attention should be given to documenting the long-term effects of communication efforts on the intended audiences. The X Factor: Does It Exist?
Asked whether there is an "X" factor that sets excellent campaigns apart from those that are merely good, solid ones, the overwhelming response from Silver Anvil judges is yes. But that factor, they say, ranges from daring creative approaches to solid implementation. "What distinguishes a great campaign is a genuinely creative approach to a worthy challenge that is executed flawlessly and yields significant, measurable results," says Pat Pollino, APR, Fellow PRSA, vice president for marketing and communication for Mercer Management Consulting, Inc. "To borrow an analogy from pro football, anyone can diagram a power sweep, but it takes a team like Vince Lombardi's Green Bay Packers to pull it off successfully." A dramatic or daring approach sets outstanding campaigns apart, says Head. Dreaming up something creative is "hard to do in this day and age, when everything seems to have already been done," he says. Corbett agrees and further defines the X factor that winning campaigns share. "The great campaigns are those that are strategic in nature, have a well-defined goal, are very targeted and have results that stand out like a crystal in the sun," says Corbett. "I believe that there is an X factor, although it is difficult to discern at first glance. It is the chemistry that makes the program gel. It could be an out-of-the-box idea; it could be the people involved or the manner in which the campaign was implemented. Or it could be many factors woven together like a resilient fabric." Veronda doesn't believe there is an X factor. "It's solid implementation of the four-step process," he says. "Some of our critics would say you should just look at results, but to show it was public relations that moved the needle, you had to do the upfront research and establish the benchmarks." The best public relations does not impress the reader as merely public relations, but approaches the business problem of the organization, says Clarke Caywood, Ph.D., graduate professor of integrated marketing communications at Northwestern University. "It uses the richness of the field to solve problems and create new opportunities to increase revenues or reduce costs and contribute to the triple bottom line of social, environmental and financial security of the organization, its employees, investors and other stakeholders," he says. But bottom-line results, says Acord, is the X factor. "I'd like to know how behavior was changed. For example, did sales increase? Was there greater turnout at an event? What I want to know is how the PR program made a difference for the organization." Final Thoughts on Campaign Planning
The bottom line for campaign planning? Focus on those aspects of campaign planning that will help you achieve your goal. Do good, solid research that benchmarks your starting point; use that research to build your strategy; set complete objectives that specify type, amount and time frame for change; and document your outcomes. Sprinkle in a heavy dose of creativity, both in problem-solving and tactical execution, and efficient use of funding, and you are well on your way to producing an outstanding PR campaign.
Catherine B. Ahles, APR, Fellow PRSA, is associate professor of advertising and public relations at Florida International University. She spent 27 years in nonprofit and governmental public relations, where she conducted large-scale public information and ballot proposal initiatives, and she has won two Silver Anvils for such campaigns. Ahles can be reached at: ahlesc@fiu.edu. | 
