Efficacy is different from efficiency. It is important for strategic communications practitioners to differentiate between both outcomes in our planning for programmes and campaigns. Doing something quickly or cheaply is a waste of resources when it is impact that one is looking for.
Many strategic communications practitioners face the same challenges when it comes to metrics and measuring the outcomes of their programmes. These challenges include demonstrating speed to market, measuring the value provided to their brand and organisation, how efficiently resources were deployed and the effectiveness of the programme in producing a desired behaviour.
We argue that efficacy (or effectiveness) is different and more desirable than efficiency. Let us define the terms properly to reduce any confusion.
When we measure efficacy of a programme or a campaign, we are looking at the value, impact or benefit produced that influences an action or behaviour we want the customer to take. This can be measured as an action, for example conversion or purchase; as well as behaviour, for example moving the decision to the next stage or referring the product to their community.
In contrast, when we talk about efficiency of a campaign, we refer to how well we can accomplish our goals and objectives with the least use or wastage of resources. These resources can refer to budget, time, and manpower. To be thorough, practitioners should also tally agency resources, third-party costs as well as time spent optimising and tweaking the plan during execution. These costs are often regarded as ‘investment’ or ‘sunk cost’ and can give stakeholders a wrong impression that the programme is not proceeding according to plan. Do be aware of the sunk cost fallacy in decision making though.
Through the Strategic Communications Academy, we provide coaching and training services for teams and practitioners on skill sets and competencies.
Services includes building basic and foundational capabilities on writing, media relations, the use of content and the application of communications through to developing good project management skills and client/stakeholder relationships for practitioners.
SCG also provides problem-solving consultancy services to organisations looking for growth through market entry, market expansion, as well as product and service launches.
Send an email to connect@strtgcommsgrp.com OR book an exploratory consultation through this link OR complete this form and we will connect with you shortly.
We work with brands in the corporate, professional services, retail, travel, and technology spaces.
The importance of setting clear and realistic goals and outcomes for programmes and campaigns
Setting clear and realistic goals and outcomes is a critical step for any strategic communications programme or campaign. Regardless of whether the plan is built ground-up or reverse engineered, the key step is to set the outcomes and how to measure these outcomes in relation to business goals.
- Ask, build, or receive clear and complete answers to the following questions.
- What will successful execution of this programme look like?
- Which business goals and communication objectives will it achieve or impact?
- If there is no clear link to the goal, can I measure its impact through a proxy?
- What would this proxy logically look like?
- How does it connect to the goal through numbers, actions, or behaviours?
It bears saying that these measurements should be both qualitative and quantitative and map to the programme and campaign objectives.
Being realistic with the outcomes will make measuring the programme’s efficacy easier.
Measuring efficacy of programmes
When it comes to measurements, stakeholders tend to prefer quantitative metrics. It is easier to report, and a formula used to determine the increase (or decrease) over time (for example, year-on-year, month-on-month and similar). The ‘number’ layer should form the baseline of a report, since it is the most accessible means of accounting for the performance of a programme. With accessibility, stakeholders can be reassured efficiently about progress.
However, it should not be the only layer or means to prove efficacy. This would be discounting the qualitative and intangibles that situations often throw up.
As shared earlier, we have also considered proxies for actions and behaviours as a measurement. It is useful to demonstrate that these behaviours helped achieve the goals and outcomes more than through numbers alone.
These intangibles must be measured as well but given their qualitative nature, the descriptor and the demonstration of value must be easily understood. It bears spending time to map the measurement, proxy and descriptor to the specific goal or outcome it will support and explain how it does so. When the metric is pulled up, this explanation should follow along so the measurement is always viewed with context.
If discussed at the pre-campaign stage, it is also good to secure understanding and ownership by stakeholders.
For example, measuring engagement of customers through virtual events can be quantitatively measured by attendance, number of questions asked and sales conversions. From a qualitative perspective, the number of participants who do not drop out before the CTA is made, whether any post-event sales appointments are made and whether participants refer the event to their community are good proxies to consider.
Photo by Zarak Khan on Unsplash