Understanding the Framework: Theoretical Models in PR Research

Public relations is often perceived as a creative, instinct-driven profession – press releases, media events, social media buzz. But behind every successful PR campaign lies something far more rigorous: a structured research framework. Theoretical models in PR research are the backbone that transforms communication efforts from guesswork into measurable, strategic programmes. They guide practitioners through planning, execution, and evaluation, ensuring that every action is tied to clear objectives and demonstrable results. In this post, we break down three foundational models – the Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) Process, Cutlip, Center and Broom’s PII Model, and Macnamara’s Pyramid Model – and explore why they matter for modern PR practice.

Why PR needs theoretical models 🔗

A PR campaign without a research framework is like constructing a building without blueprints. You might get something built, but you won’t know why it stands – or how to replicate it. Theoretical models provide a step-by-step structure that helps practitioners plan with clarity, implement with purpose, and evaluate with precision. They move the profession beyond counting press clippings and into measuring real outcomes like attitude shifts, behaviour changes, and organisational impact.

As scholars have noted, the call for rigorous evaluation in public relations dates back to the early 1950s, with figures like Edward Bernays and Arthur Page advocating for opinion polls and scientific assessment. Yet for decades, many practitioners resisted formal evaluation. It was only through the development and promotion of structured models – from the 1980s onward – that the profession began to take measurement seriously.

These models also address a persistent problem that Cutlip, Center and Broom identified as early as 1985: the “substitution game.” This happens when practitioners use metrics from one level (say, the number of press releases sent) to claim success at another level (like changes in audience behaviour). Good theoretical frameworks prevent this confusion by clearly separating different stages and types of measurement.

The Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) process 🔗

The PRE Process was developed by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) and published as part of its Evaluation Toolkit in 2011. It positions evaluation not as an afterthought but as an integral part of the entire PR campaign lifecycle. The model is circular and iterative, meaning it doesn’t end – it loops back into itself.

The five steps of the PRE process 🔗

The CIPR’s proposed scheme consists of five interconnected steps:

1. Audit: This is the starting point. It involves conducting research and gathering information to form a solid foundation for the campaign. What’s the current situation? What does the organisation already know about its publics? What has been tried before? This step relies heavily on formative research – environmental scanning, media analysis, stakeholder mapping, and secondary data review.

2. Setting objectives: Based on audit findings, the practitioner sets SMART objectives – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. These objectives must align with broader organisational goals, not just communication goals. For instance, rather than a vague aim like “increase visibility,” a SMART objective might be: “Increase awareness of the new recycling programme among city residents aged 25-40 by 30% within six months.”

3. Strategy and plan: Here, the practitioner decides on key messages, target audiences, communication channels, and tactics. Everything in this stage flows from the objectives set in step two.

4. Ongoing measurement: Unlike models that only evaluate at the end, the PRE process builds in continuous monitoring. Are messages reaching the intended audiences? Is media coverage on track? Are social media engagement metrics moving in the right direction? This real-time data allows for mid-course corrections.

5. Results and evaluation: The final step assesses whether the objectives were met. But here’s the key insight of the PRE model – this evaluation feeds directly back into the audit stage. The findings become the new baseline for future planning. If a partnership with local businesses drove strong results but print advertising didn’t, the next cycle’s plan reflects that learning.

Why the circular nature matters 🔗

The PRE model’s greatest strength is its cyclical design. Many organisations treat evaluation as a final report to file away. The PRE process insists that evaluation findings become the raw material for the next campaign. This creates a culture of continuous improvement rather than one-off assessment.

Cutlip, Center and Broom’s PII model 🔗

Scott Cutlip, Allen Center, and Glen Broom are among the most influential figures in PR education. Their textbook Effective Public Relations, first published in 1952, is widely considered one of the earliest scholarly works to address measurement and evaluation in the field. While they are well known for the four-step RACE process (Research, Action, Communication, Evaluation), they also developed a more granular evaluation framework called the PII Model, which stands for Preparation, Implementation, and Impact.

Preparation: evaluating the groundwork 🔗

Before a campaign even launches, the PII model asks: how good was our planning? This stage evaluates the quality of the inputs that went into designing the campaign. Key questions include whether the research base was adequate and accurate, whether the messages created were clear and relevant to the target audience, and whether the overall programme design was sound. It’s essentially a quality check on the blueprint before construction begins.

For example, if a healthcare organisation plans an anti-smoking campaign targeting teenagers, the Preparation stage would assess whether formative research accurately captured teen attitudes toward smoking, whether the chosen language and imagery resonated with that demographic, and whether the selected media channels were ones teenagers actually use.

Implementation: evaluating the execution 🔗

This stage measures the tactics and activities carried out during the campaign. How many press releases were distributed? How many events were held? How many social media posts went live? Implementation evaluation tracks whether the plan was executed as designed.

However, Cutlip, Center and Broom were careful to warn that implementation metrics should never be confused with impact metrics. Counting the number of newsletters sent is not the same as proving those newsletters changed anyone’s mind. This distinction is central to the PII model and directly addresses the “substitution game” that plagues many PR evaluations.

Impact: evaluating the real outcomes 🔗

The Impact level is where the PII model reaches its most meaningful stage. Here, evaluation focuses on whether the campaign actually produced changes in the target audience. These changes fall into three categories:

Knowledge gain: Did the audience learn something new? Did awareness of the issue increase?

Attitude change: Did the audience’s opinions or feelings shift? For instance, did teenagers begin to view smoking as less appealing after the campaign?

Behaviour change: Did the audience actually do something different? Did smoking rates among the target group decline?

The PII model’s three-level structure forces practitioners to move beyond surface-level metrics. A PR team can no longer claim success simply because it distributed 500 press kits. It must demonstrate that those press kits contributed to measurable shifts in knowledge, attitudes, or behaviour.

Macnamara’s Pyramid model 🔗

Jim Macnamara, an Australian professor of public communication, first introduced his evaluation framework as the “Macro Model of PR Evaluation” in 1992. It was later revised and renamed the Pyramid Model of PR Research in subsequent editions (2000, 2002). The model builds on the foundations laid by the PII model but adds a more detailed hierarchy and, importantly, incorporates specific measurement methodologies at each level.

Reading the pyramid from the bottom up 🔗

The Pyramid Model is designed to be read from the base upward – starting with the broadest, most basic level of evaluation and moving toward the narrowest, most significant level at the peak. As Macnamara explained, the pyramid metaphor conveys that at the base, when planning begins, practitioners have a large volume of information to assemble and a wide range of options. As the campaign progresses, these are refined toward specific, defined objectives at the peak.

Level 1: Inputs 🔗

The base of the pyramid represents the resources committed to the programme – budget, staff time, materials, and research data. This level is essentially an accounting exercise. It asks: what did we put into this effort? While inputs are necessary to track, they don’t tell you anything about effectiveness.

Level 2: Outputs 🔗

The next level measures the tangible products of the campaign – press releases written, events organised, social media content published, media placements achieved. Outputs indicate productivity, but not whether the work achieved its goals. Ten media releases mean nothing if nobody read them.

Level 3: Outtakes 🔗

This is a crucial middle layer that many earlier models overlooked. Outtakes measure what the audience actually received and retained from the campaign’s outputs. Metrics at this level include audience reach (how many people were actually exposed to the message), message recall (did they remember it?), comprehension (did they understand it correctly?), and engagement (did they interact with it?). Outtakes serve as a bridge between what the organisation did and what it achieved.

Level 4: Outcomes 🔗

Outcomes measure genuine changes in the target audience – shifts in knowledge, attitudes, opinions, or behaviour. This corresponds directly to the Impact level of the PII model. Did the anti-smoking campaign reduce teen smoking rates? Did the product launch generate purchase intent? Outcomes are where the real strategic value of PR becomes visible.

Level 5: Organisational impact 🔗

The peak of the pyramid addresses the broadest, most long-term question: what did this PR effort mean for the organisation as a whole? This could include contributions to revenue growth, improved stakeholder relationships, enhanced corporate reputation, or even broader social and cultural change. The PII model originally identified impacts that could include social and cultural change, and the Pyramid Model carries this forward to its highest level.

Formative and evaluative research combined 🔗

One of the Pyramid Model’s key contributions is that it explicitly incorporates both formative research (conducted during planning) and evaluative research (conducted after execution) at every stage. Macnamara argued that more research should happen at the beginning and early stages of communication than at the end. This front-loading of research helps prevent costly errors and ensures that evaluation is not just a post-mortem exercise but an ongoing, integrated practice.

How these models work together 🔗

While each of these three frameworks has its own structure and emphasis, they share a common philosophy: PR must be grounded in research, guided by clear objectives, and validated through rigorous evaluation. They are not competing models but complementary tools that address different aspects of the same challenge.

The PRE Process provides the overarching workflow – a continuous cycle of planning, executing, evaluating, and learning. It’s especially useful as an organisational mindset, reminding teams that evaluation is never “done.”

The PII Model offers a clear taxonomy for evaluation, separating the quality of preparation from the execution of tactics and the actual impact on audiences. It’s particularly effective at preventing the substitution error that Cutlip and colleagues warned about.

The Pyramid Model adds granularity, especially with the inclusion of the “outtakes” layer and the integration of specific measurement methodologies. It also provides a visual hierarchy that communicates well in boardrooms and client presentations, making the case for PR’s strategic value.

Together, these models equip PR practitioners to answer the questions that matter most to organisational leadership: What did we plan? What did we do? What did the audience take away? What changed? And what did it mean for the organisation?

The strategic value of research-driven PR 🔗

These theoretical models do more than just help practitioners evaluate campaigns. They elevate the entire profession. When a PR team can walk into a boardroom and present data showing how a communication programme contributed to measurable shifts in public attitude or stakeholder behaviour, it earns what professionals often call a “seat at the table.”

Research-driven PR demonstrates return on investment in terms that management, shareholders, and other stakeholders understand. It justifies budgets, informs strategy, and proves that public relations is not just about generating buzz – it’s a management function that contributes directly to organisational objectives.

The strategic PR process – whether framed as RACE, RPIE, PRE, or any other acronym – consistently starts with research and ends with evaluation. The models discussed here provide the frameworks that make that process systematic, measurable, and repeatable.

Challenges in applying these models 🔗

Despite their value, these frameworks are not without practical challenges. Evaluation costs money and time. Conducting pre- and post-campaign surveys, organising focus groups, and tracking behavioural data all require resources that many PR teams – especially in smaller organisations – may not have. There’s also the issue of attribution: proving that a specific change in public behaviour was caused by a PR campaign rather than by other variables (advertising, market conditions, competitor actions) remains difficult.

Additionally, the rise of digital communication has created both opportunities and complications. On one hand, social media analytics, web traffic data, and online engagement metrics provide more data points than ever before. On the other hand, the sheer volume of data can be overwhelming, and vanity metrics (likes, impressions, follower counts) can easily be mistaken for meaningful outcomes – essentially a digital version of the substitution game.

This is precisely why having a strong theoretical framework matters. Models like PII and the Pyramid don’t just tell practitioners what to measure – they tell them what level of measurement they’re actually performing and whether it’s the right one for their objectives.

Moving forward: the evolving landscape of PR evaluation 🔗

PR evaluation continues to evolve. The International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) has developed its own Integrated Evaluation Framework, building on the principles established by earlier models. The Barcelona Principles, first articulated in 2010 and revised since, emphasise that goal-setting and measurement are fundamental to communication, that measuring outcomes is preferred over measuring outputs, and that advertising value equivalents (AVEs) are not valid measures of PR value.

These developments all trace back to the foundational work of Cutlip, Center and Broom, Macnamara, and the CIPR. The models they created didn’t just provide evaluation tools – they established the philosophical position that PR must be accountable, evidence-based, and strategically aligned with organisational goals.

What do you think? Do you believe most PR campaigns today are truly evaluated at the impact level, or do organisations still rely too heavily on output metrics like media coverage and social media counts? How might the growing availability of digital analytics change the way these classic models are applied in practice?

References

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0363811123000267
2. https://amecorg.com/amecframework/home/supporting-material/taxonomy/
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036381111100213X
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265104424_Research_in_Public_Relations_A_review_of_the_use_of_evaluation_and_formative_research
5. https://www.academia.edu/figures/3284519/figure-7-the-pyramid-model-of-pr-research-revised-version-of
6. https://instituteforpr.org/pr-research-for-planning-and-evaluation/
7. https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/public-relations/s10-the-public-relations-process-r.html