ABSTRACT
The growing demand for accountability in organizations places public relations units under pressure to justify their functions. The lack of a solid theoretical framework in the academic literature on evaluation of public relations makes it difficult for practitioners to respond to these demands. This deficit in the literature has resulted, in large part, from the lack of agreement on “what is to be measured” and “who is to do the measuring.” This chapter argues that evaluation of public relations activities is a shared responsibility—the domain of program evaluation groups, communication managers, line managers, and internal audit units (where such units exist). CEOs and other top executives engage in management reviews that assess the relevance of public relations functions. Several groups become involved in evaluating role performance (outcomes, processes, efficiency of operations, impact, and outputs). Program evaluation units have the objectivity and expertise to evaluate outcomes. They also have the resources and broader experience with the organization to measure processes. Internal audit groups are well equipped to assess efficiency of operations. The communication manager, working in cooperation with line managers, has the requisite knowledge in public relations to evaluate outputs and impacts of specific products and activities. However, program evaluation teams join with communicators in assessing the impacts of large-scale campaigns, which require greater investment of human and financial resources. Social critics, academics, and practitioners become engaged in evaluating the ethics of public relations practices. The importance of evaluating ethical practices means that organizations should not scale down their evaluation of processes or outputs, even if they choose to put greater emphasis on outcomes and impact.
