The Essential Guide to Research and Evaluation in Public Relations

Every successful public relations campaign has one thing in common – it’s built on evidence, not guesswork. Research and evaluation are what separate strategic PR from mere publicity stunts. Yet, many practitioners still treat research as an afterthought, something that slows down the “real work” of writing press releases and pitching stories. The truth? Without research, you’re flying blind. And without evaluation, you’ll never know if you actually landed.

Why research matters in public relations 🔗

Research is an essential part of public relations management. It’s the mechanism that transforms PR from a gut-feeling exercise into a disciplined, strategic function. As defined by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), PR research is the systematic gathering of information to describe and understand a situation, check assumptions about groups of people and perceptions, and determine the public relations consequences.

At its core, research helps PR professionals answer three fundamental questions: Who are we trying to reach? What do they already know and feel? And what’s the best way to communicate with them?

Without conducting research, public relations relies solely on experience or instinct – neither of which plays a significant role in strategic management. Think of it this way: if a healthcare company launches a campaign about a new wellness initiative without first understanding its audience’s existing health beliefs, the messaging could easily miss the mark – or worse, backfire.

Research transforms communication from one-way to two-way 🔗

Research enables two-way communication by gathering information from publics, rather than simply broadcasting messages outward. This distinction is critical. One-way communication – just pushing information out – assumes you know what your audience needs. Two-way communication, powered by research, allows you to listen first and then craft messages that actually resonate.

Scholars have found that two-way communication is generally more effective than one-way communication, particularly when organisations face turbulent environments like regulatory changes, shifting industry trends, or pressure from activist groups.

Research makes PR strategic 🔗

Research ensures that communication is specifically targeted to publics who want, need, or care about the information. Without it, money and effort are wasted on audiences who have no interest in the message. With it, PR practitioners can segment audiences, tailor messages, and direct resources where they’ll have the greatest impact.

Without research, public relations would not function as a true management discipline. It would regress to press agentry – relying on hunches and instinct to generate publicity. Research is what earns PR a seat at the leadership table.

Types of research in public relations 🔗

PR research broadly falls into two categories based on timing, and two based on methodology. Understanding these distinctions is essential for choosing the right approach.

Formative vs. evaluative research 🔗

Formative research happens before a campaign begins. It focuses on understanding the environment before any strategy or messaging is developed – through situation analyses, stakeholder interviews, media audits, social listening, or environmental scanning. The goal is to identify key issues, audience expectations, and opportunities so that communication decisions are grounded in reality rather than assumptions.

Evaluative research happens after (or during) a campaign. It measures the degree of change attributable to public relations activities. For example, if a pre-campaign survey showed that 17% of a target audience was aware of a company’s policy on an issue, a post-campaign survey might reveal that awareness rose to 34%. That measurable shift is the direct result of evaluative research.

Formal vs. informal research 🔗

Formal research is planned research – either quantitative or qualitative – designed to generate data that can be used to target communications and measure results. Surveys, experiments, content analysis, and focus groups all fall into this category.

Informal research is collected on an ongoing basis from sources both inside and outside the organisation. It includes conversations with stakeholders, reading customer emails or comment cards, scanning the news, and monitoring trade publications. While informal research is less rigorous, it provides valuable day-to-day intelligence that keeps PR teams aware of emerging issues.

Quantitative vs. qualitative research 🔗

Quantitative research is numerically based – it uses surveys with closed-ended questions, statistical analysis, and sampling to produce data you can measure and compare. It answers the “how many” and “how much” questions.

Qualitative research is particularly effective at answering “how” and “why” questions. Focus groups, in-depth interviews, and ethnographic studies fall into this category. They provide rich, detailed insights into how people think, feel, and make decisions – information that numbers alone can’t capture.

The most effective PR campaigns combine both. Quantitative data identifies patterns across large audiences; qualitative data explains the motivations behind those patterns.

The RACE model: a structured approach to PR research 🔗

The public relations process is primarily composed of four steps: using research to define the problem, developing objectives and strategies, implementing those strategies, and measuring the results. This is commonly known through John Marston’s RACE acronym – Research, Action planning, Communication, and Evaluation. Jerry Hendrix’s ROPE model (Research, Objectives, Programming, Evaluation) follows a similar logic.

The key takeaway from both models is that the process always starts with research and ends with evaluation. You don’t begin a campaign by writing copy. You begin by understanding the landscape.

Research used at the beginning to understand the situation and inform strategy is called formative research. A natural gas company considering a new pipeline route, for instance, would need to research potential environmental concerns, gauge community sentiment, and assess whether organised neighbourhood groups might oppose the project – all before any communication begins.

The problem of pseudo research 🔗

Not all activities labelled “research” are created equal. Pseudo research is one of the biggest pitfalls in the PR industry – and it can do serious damage to both credibility and campaign effectiveness.

According to the Quirk’s marketing research glossary, pseudo research refers to data or results presented as legitimate but which are actually fake or not based on valid research techniques. It’s designed to appear objective while actually serving a promotional or biased purpose.

What does pseudo research look like? 🔗

Pseudo research takes many forms. It might involve conducting a “survey” with leading questions designed to produce favourable results. It could mean cherry-picking data to support a predetermined narrative, or using a sample so small or skewed that the results are meaningless. Sometimes, it’s as simple as dressing up promotional content in the language of research to give it an air of authority.

Common users of pseudo research include marketing departments pushing specific narratives, advocacy groups with agenda-driven campaigns, and organisations aiming to validate preconceived strategies.

Why pseudo research is dangerous 🔗

The consequences are significant. Campaigns built on flawed data are less likely to connect with their target audiences. Stakeholders may feel misled, eroding trust. And internally, poor data leads to poor decision-making – resources get allocated to the wrong channels, the wrong messages go to the wrong people, and outcomes fall short of expectations.

Ethical market researchers actively educate clients on the differences between real and pseudo research and advocate for integrity in study design and interpretation. PR professionals should do the same.

Evaluation: measuring what matters 🔗

Evaluation is where the value of PR gets proven – or questioned. It’s the systematic assessment of whether a campaign achieved its objectives and delivered real impact. Yet it remains one of the most underpractised aspects of PR.

The difference between measurement, analysis, and evaluation 🔗

According to the Institute for Public Relations, measurement is what can be observed and counted – blog posts written, event attendees, followers gained. Analysis goes deeper, applying professional expertise to answer why something happened. Evaluation takes a holistic view, determining the degree to which strategies achieved their PR objectives and contributed value to the organisation.

Too many PR teams stop at measurement. They count press clippings and social media likes and call it a day. But counting outputs without understanding outcomes is like a doctor taking your temperature but never diagnosing the illness.

Outputs, outtakes, and outcomes 🔗

A helpful way to organise evaluation is through three levels: outputs, outtakes, and outcomes. Each captures a different stage of communication impact.

Outputs measure production and distribution – how many press releases were sent, how many social media posts were published, how many events were held. They tell you what the PR team did, but not whether it worked.

Outtakes measure audience reactions – were people attentive to the content? Did they recall the message? Did they engage with it or share it?

Outcomes measure the effect on the target audience – increased understanding, changed attitudes, greater trust, or shifts in intention to act.

The progression from outputs to outcomes represents a journey from activity to impact. Effective evaluation follows this full journey rather than stopping at the first step.

The Barcelona Principles: a global framework for PR measurement 🔗

For years, the PR industry lacked standardised guidelines for measurement and evaluation. That changed in 2010 when practitioners from 33 countries gathered in Barcelona, Spain, at a summit convened by the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) and agreed on the first overarching framework for PR measurement.

The Barcelona Principles have been updated several times since – in 2015, 2020, and most recently in 2025 with version 4.0. Here are the key ideas that have remained central throughout:

Goal-setting is a prerequisite. Setting measurable goals is an absolute precondition to communication planning, measurement, and evaluation. Without clear objectives, there’s nothing meaningful to measure.

Outcomes matter more than outputs. The Barcelona Principles highlight the need for outcome-based rather than output-based measurement. Counting press clippings doesn’t tell you whether anyone’s attitudes or behaviours changed.

Ad Value Equivalents (AVEs) are not valid. The principles emphasise that AVEs measure the cost of media space, not the value of communication or earned media. This outdated metric has been consistently rejected by measurement professionals worldwide.

Both qualitative and quantitative methods are needed. Qualitative methods can often add a needed dimension to explain the “why” behind quantitative findings.

Measurement should be transparent and ethical. Sound measurement requires integrity, transparency, and awareness of potential biases in tools, methodologies, and interpretations.

Research as both instinct and strategy 🔗

Researchers note that research is, in many ways, innate to most people. We all conduct informal research daily – comparing brands at the supermarket, reading reviews before choosing a restaurant, weighing options before making a decision. PR professionals do the same thing, just more systematically.

The key is to recognise this natural inclination and channel it into structured, strategic inquiry. When a PR professional reads industry news, monitors social media conversations, or talks informally with stakeholders, they’re practising informal research. The challenge is to complement these instincts with formal, rigorous methods that produce reliable, actionable data.

This dual nature – research as both everyday habit and disciplined practice – is what makes it so powerful. It means PR professionals don’t need to become statisticians. They need to be curious, systematic, and committed to letting evidence guide their decisions.

How to build a research-driven PR practice 🔗

Integrating research into your PR workflow doesn’t require a massive budget or a team of data scientists. It requires a mindset shift and a structured approach.

Start with clear objectives 🔗

Before collecting any data, define what you’re trying to learn. Are you trying to understand audience perceptions of your brand? Assess the competitive landscape? Measure the impact of a recent campaign? Every research process should begin by clarifying what you’re trying to understand or improve.

Use secondary research first 🔗

Secondary research – reviewing existing data, published studies, and industry reports – should always come first. There’s a good chance someone has already studied the topic you’re interested in. Government databases, academic journals, trade publications, and digital analytics tools are all rich sources of existing information. Don’t reinvent the wheel when you don’t have to.

Choose the right methods 🔗

Match your research method to your question. If you need demographic data and broad opinion trends, use quantitative surveys. If you need to understand the motivations behind people’s attitudes, use qualitative methods like focus groups or interviews. For media-specific questions, content analysis and media monitoring tools can provide systematic insights.

Evaluate throughout the campaign, not just at the end 🔗

Communication research, analysis, and evaluation form a cyclical process – not a linear one. Ongoing evaluation during a campaign allows you to adjust tactics in real time, rather than discovering after the fact that something wasn’t working.

Report findings with integrity 🔗

Present both successes and shortcomings. As AMEC’s Barcelona Principles 4.0 emphasise, communications professionals must resist the pressure to present only the good results. Transparent reporting builds credibility and creates a foundation for genuine improvement.

What do you think? Has a lack of research ever led to a PR campaign that completely missed its audience? And in your view, how can smaller organisations with limited budgets still incorporate meaningful research into their communication strategies?

References

1. https://www.panblastpr.com/resources/the-role-of-research-in-pr-planning/
2. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Journalism_and_Mass_Communication/Mastering_Public_Relations/08:_Public_Relations_Research-_The_Key_to_Strategy/8.01:_Importance_of_Research_in_Public_Relations_Management
3. https://thecommspot.com/comm-subjects/strategic-communication/public-relations/research-analysis-in-public-relations/
4. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/public-relations/s10-the-public-relations-process-r.html
5. https://www.quirks.com/glossary/pseudo-research
6. https://instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/IPR-Guide-to-Measurement-v13-1.pdf
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_Principles