Conversations from the Corner Office
Conversations from the Corner Office is a regular feature that provides a perspective on measurement from members of the C-suite.
You’ve heard of that infamous cost-cutter “Chainsaw Al.” Well, now meet “ ‘Dozer” Doug Chapin, a former CEO and corporate turn-around mechanic who’s first act at most companies he works for is to fire the PR firm. Doug (of Chapin Consulting) has always been skeptical about the value of PR. His background in economics and physics means he’ll question your correlations and poke holes in your data before you can say “Barcelona Principles.”
The Measurement Advisor: It is my experience that the biggest motivators of change are fear and ego. What motivates you to cut or keep a program?
‘Dozer Doug: I argue that CEOs who are driven by ego — who just want more followers or more “ink” — don’t last very long in their jobs. And when they go, the PR people aren’t far behind.
TMS: I perceive that CEOs are all obsessed with data, and that data is all that matters at the board level. Is that true? If so, what are you looking for?
DD: What I want and need to know is what is worth investing in? What works and doesn’t work? Where do I put resources and where can I take them away?
At my level we are faced with dozens of decisions every day. Some of them small, some of them enormous. The one thing that makes my life easier is having good, reliable, repeatable data with which to make those decisions. I’m not saying that data is the only factor, but it is one of a multitude of factors.
For instance, if it looks like we aren’t going to make our profit numbers, do I cut out the free fruit and soda, or trim the PR agency budget? Do I invest more in customer service to hang on to the business we have, or invest more in social media to expand our network of advocates? I will make all those decisions with a mixture of trusted advice, data, and experience. Where there is no good solid data that ties resources to outcomes, I tend to discount that solution.
So, when PR comes to me and says they got xx number of hits, or have xx number of followers, and I say “So what?” and the answer is not given in some revenue-related way, I move on to the next possible solution.
TMA: Do all decisions require reams of data, or just the big ones?
DD: The bigger the investment, the more data I require. If you’re asking me to build a new facility, or invest in a multi-million marketing campaign, I’m going to need a lot of data and a lot of convincing. If you’re trying to get me to go out on a press tour, I may not require as much data, but still will need some evidence that the effort is worth my time.
TMA: What role does fear play in your decision making?
DD: I won’t deny that fear of the competition, fear of losing customers, and fear of falling behind all play a role. So if you can show me how or where the competition has an edge, I will pay attention. Without competitive data, I am much less likely to take a threat seriously. You need to convince me that to do otherwise (from what you are recommending) will hurt us in some very real way.
TMA: What has caused you to lose faith in your PR agency or staff?
DD: It all comes back to data. Either there is no data — no metrics or even an attempt to prove that what they’ve been doing is worthwhile or has a positive business benefit — or bad data — conclusions that are not based on fact or valid data. In many ways the latter is worse than the former. If you have no data at all, it might just be that no one was asking the right questions, or motivating you to measure at all. But if you present me with bad data, my trust in you instantly dissipates. I assume that either you are too dumb or careless to validate your data, or you think I’m too stupid to notice. Either way, you lose.
TMA: So how do I fix this credibility gap?
DD: First of all verify your data. If you can’t do it, find someone who can: a graduate student, a market analyst, or someone in accounting that has passed a basic statistics course. Show that the results are replicable, and could be applied to future programs. Beware of big numbers and make sure the data pass a common sense test. We had one agency that tried to convince the board that 3.8 billion people in the U.S. had seen its messages in the last 6 months. Not sure if they’d checked the US population lately but it that would mean that everyone in the US saw our messages 100 times. Seriously?
TMA: Thanks for your time.
DD: My pleasure. ◊
Comments are closed.