Last week, Matt Cartmell wrote an article in PR Week about ‘Payment by Results’ after the PRCA hit out against a growing trend of clients demanding it.

Payment by Results is always going to be difficult for an industry that is constantly in turmoil about how it evaluates its effectiveness.

PR agencies are, quite rightly, keen to be transparent and show the value they bring to their clients.

But the difficulty arises when trying to actually define what  is meant by results - particularly in this context.  

Is it the amount of media coverage you obtain for a client?  

Because that can lead to the old quality Vs quantity debate.  

Should you go off Advertising Equivalent Value (AEV)?

It can be a useful benchmark.

But the PR message isn’t as controlled as advertising so I don’t believe the two are really comparable – and if a client wanted an ad campaign they would have created one in the first place.

So that does that mean results should mean the incremental value that your campaign creates for the client – probably against their bottom line?  

Ideally yes.

But the tricky part is how you isolate PR from the rest of the marketing mix to prove its worth – and whether the client will invest in this kind of tracking?


The second big issue is around control.

You see, you’re never fully in control of your own destiny when you work in a service-led industry like PR.   

Your client (or their boss) may change / tweak your plans so you are left with something that may be fundamentally different to what you think is most likely to deliver success.

But your remuneration will still be based on the results you achieve with the plan.  

 Is this fair?

 
The third factor is that PR works within a global media framework – and this can’t be ignored.

You may spend six months developing a strategy for an unbelievable campaign – but every now and again a major news story will break (war, natural disaster, terror attack etc) and your launch falls off the front page and there is nothing you can do about it.

The final, and maybe the most pertinent point though, is around equal share of risk.  

If a client wants to pay by results – how much of the upside for over performance will they be prepared to share with their agency?

Surely the agency's payment should be allowed to grow exponentially with the success?

Because if it isn’t – the reality is that the ‘payment by results’ model is just a way of negotiating the agency to work harder for less.

And that shouldn’t work for agencies.