{"id":1522,"date":"2017-10-25T19:53:12","date_gmt":"2017-10-25T19:53:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.anaadi.net\/?p=1522"},"modified":"2017-10-25T20:05:09","modified_gmt":"2017-10-25T20:05:09","slug":"pr-post-crisis-measurement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.anaadi.net\/blog\/2017\/10\/25\/pr-post-crisis-measurement\/","title":{"rendered":"PR: post-crisis measurement"},"content":{"rendered":"

GMP PR Romania has organised their second international conference dedicated to PR measurement<\/a>. I was invited to join them again (I was thrilled but they say I have done a good job the first time around) and my brief was to talk about what should PR practitioners measure after a crisis.<\/p>\n

Like with the PROI talk<\/a>, my argument was that in the aftermath of a crisis the focus on the PR practitioner should be on reputation and trust<\/strong> (after of course all the elements pertaining to the crisis have been addressed – such as delivering whatever was promised to those to whom it was promised and thinking of the lessons learned from the management of the crisis).\"\"<\/p>\n

To assess the effects on reputation, the RepTrack model is a good point to start, considering how its dimensions link to measurement of PR outtakes and outputs.<\/p>\n

To assess trust, the Institute for Public Relations makes available to extremely valuable guidelines form Hon and Grunig (1999)<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0and Grunig (2002).<\/a><\/p>\n

My prezi from the day is embedded below:<\/p>\n