Breeching Subjectivity

Today is the end of my second week here at KOM and a lot of my work this week has centred around one continuous theme- subjectivity.
Being outside of the UK I have made a very conscious effort to keep up to date with topical themes surfacing. I might be completely off the mark but these seem to surround the re-branding of the Starbucks logo and the possible implications of celebrity endorsement on Twitter, there have been other themes of a less influential nature- but I´m afraid they come into the category scandal/ guilty pleasures.
The issue of ´celebrity endorsement´is difficult to address effectively,yet it appears it will be one that ultimately is answered with a simple yes or no answer. The practicalities of the issue though would encourage further debate no doubt centering around freedom of speech and higher governing bodies regulating social media- from policing possible endorsement to deciding ultimately who we ´brand´with celebrity status´- all of which are open to subjectivity on a number of levels.

The theme of subjectivity however has transcended across into my placement. I have spent a lot of this week talking to my colleagues in detail about the work they carry out here at KOM. I have being trying to delve into the real life workings of a PR organisation, and explore its reflections on what I have been taught. So far i have uncovered a number of differences, one I have found to be quite startling however is the issue of evaluation, this area provides hours upon hours of discussion in my lectures, with its importance being paramount with regard to measuring the achievement of stated objectives. What I have found interesting during my time here in Reykjavik, is an apparent relaxed attitude towards evaluation and the possible gains it present to PR campaigns. It seems to be very much an afterthought, and though while AVE has not been mentioned (nor it would appear used) I have been struck by the apparent generalisation afforded to evaluation. The methods used, and this may be a sole reflect on the type of campaigns I have researched so far, are heavily focused quantitative methods, with impact on targeted publics remaining on the back burner.
From what I examined so far, a huge empathises has been placed on:
• Monitoring sales.
• The amount of press afforded to a campaign
• Agency based surveys
• Website hits
• Limited use of social media- namely the creation of ´Like´pages on Facebook

While all these tools are effective in measuring the apparent success of a campaign non of them really examine the impact it holds on publics.
Sales, provides merely a number, and while on the surface it is a useful tool it doesn't examine audience experience.
Press coverage provides a mere number of possible people who have had possible exposure to your message- it fails to explore how many people read and adopted your message.
Surveys seem to be the most favoured evaluation technique i have discovered so far- agencies target a random selection of the population here in Iceland by e-mail. However this again has its downfalls- found in the subjectivity of the answers given (from what I have seen the surveys used provide closed answers, with sample groups selecting the ´most relavant´ box, and while these results are easier to collaborate into results, they are also free from the subjectivity of interpretation by the survey agency.) They fail to engage in conversation with the respondent.
Website hits are proving popular as an evaluation tool and if used correctly (with such tools as Google Analytics- measuring how people came to your site and the average time each surfer spent there) it does provide a perhaps more comprehensive evaluation tool. The issue of dialogue is address to a certain degree in the function of Facebook ´Like´pages- however this relies heavily on your audience using the function correctly and with the respondent then transferring this into dialogue, but yet again this has possible negative connotations, the type of person likely to respond or post on such page is often “active” in there stance towards your campaign and objectives, perhaps a slightly easier person to engage with as their is already a common thread between the responder and respondent.

All of the above centres round subjectivity- an issue which I am beginning to see is not as ´black and white´as presented on the sheets on any industry text book, and is an issue that ever needs addressing by means for it ever to be effectively overcome- a job that although massive in its possible gains to the legitimacy of PR as a profession, will not be addressed by simple methods.