Medición y evaluación de la comunicación en empresas seleccionadas del gremio de comunicadores de Cancún / Measurement and evaluation of communication in selected companies of the Cancun communicators union
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5783/revrrpp.v11i22.736Keywords:
Medición y evaluación, indicadores, productos, resultados e impactoAbstract
Este trabajo indagó acerca de cómo usan la medición y evaluación algunos profesionales seleccionados del gremio de comunicadores en Cancún agrupados en la Asociación de Relaciones Públicas del Caribe Mexicano (ARPCM). A partir del empleo de métodos como la revisión bibliográfica y documental, y una entrevista semiestructurada a 22 sujetos, se conocieron las prácticas, indicadores y herramientas que utilizan para evaluar. Los resultados arrojaron que ellos le dan la importancia que merecen a estos temas, pero no están totalmente satisfechos con la forma en que lo llevan a la práctica. Por otra parte, cuentan con indicadores de evaluación asociados a sus objetivos de comunicación, pero la prevalencia está en la medición de productos y efectos, en lugar de resultados e impactos de la comunicación; así como ponen el foco en informar sobre actividades en lugar de metas, objetivos y resultados que se correlacionen con los de la organización. En momentos de la llamada “nueva normalidad” se han priorizado las acciones, los mensajes, los nuevos medios, pero aún queda por hacer en el mejoramiento de la evaluación de los mismos, por lo que en lo adelante, habrá que poner el énfasis en ello. Por todo lo anterior, se concluye que todavía queda un tramo largo por recorrer en este sentido por parte de los entrevistados.
Palabras clave: Medición y evaluación, indicadores, productos, resultados, impacto
Abstract
This paper inquired about how some selected professionals from the guild of communicators in Cancún grouped in the Association of Public Relations of Mexican Caribbean (ARPCM for its initials in Spanish) use measurement and evaluation. The research approach is qualitative, since the interest was to deepen in the phenomenon studied. A bibliographic and documentary review was used to form the theorical basis, as well as a semi-structured interview conducted virtually (which was recorded and subsequently transcribed) to a non-probabilistic purposive sample. Twenty-two subjects belonging to the ARPCM were chosen who met the following conditions: to be an active member of the Association in June 2021, that the terms Public Relations, Communication or Institutional Image appeared in the title of their position, and that they had been in the position for more than three years. Out of a population of 70 active members, 22 were selected: 2 belonging to civil associations, 5 to consulting agencies, 2 to hotels, 2 to restaurants, 3 to recreational parks, 2 to real estate agencies. 2 to travel agencies and 4 representing universities, from which 13 were women and 9 were men. Among the issues on which the interview focused were their conception of measurement and evaluation, whether they were doing it, and their satisfaction with the way in which they were currently carrying out this measurement and evaluation process. Also, there were inquiries about the indicators they used and if they were associated with their communication objectives, the main methods and the use given to the results, as well as the evaluation of the internal communication, indicators employed, among others. The results showed that they give the importance that these issues deserved, but are not completely satisfied with the way they put them into practice. On the other hand, they have evaluation indicators associated with their communication objectives, but the prevalence is on the measurement of products and effects, instead of results and impacts of communication; as well as they focus on reporting activities instead of goals, objectives and results that are correlated with those of the organization. At times of the so-called “new normality”, priority has been given to actions, messages, new media, but there is still something to be done for improvement in their evaluation; which is why, in the future, emphasis will have to be placed on this. Particularly, in improving knowledge about planning, goals, objectives, metrics, indicators, and their scope, as well as the possibilities to determine effects on the organization´s audiences. In view of the above, it is concluded that there is still a long way to go for the guild of communicators in Cancún in this regard.
Keywords: Measurement and evaluation, indicators, products, results and impact
Downloads
References
ÁLVAREZ-NOBELL, A. (2013). Hacia un modelo integral de medición y evaluación en Comunicación Estratégica: supuestos teóricos, empíricos y metodológicos. Actas – V Congreso Internacional Latina de Comunicación Social. Universidad de La Laguna, diciembre 2013. http://www.revistalatinacs.org/13slcs/2013_actas/131_nobell.pdf
BAGNALL, R. (2019). Proving our worth: comms evaluation critical industry´s future. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021 https://www.prweek.com/article/1588694/proving-worth-comms-evaluation-critical-industrys-future
BESSON, N.A. (2018). Strategische PR-Evaluation: Erfassung, Bewertung und Kontrolle von Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021 de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321876368_Strategische_PR-Evaluation_Erfassung_Bewertung_und_Kontrolle_von_Offentlichkeitsarbeit
BUHMANN, A., & LIKELY, F. (2018). For Chief Communication Officers: Here´s an Overarching Model to Help You Put the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework into a Broader Value Creation Context. In: AMEC & Jasper Andersen (eds.). Demonstrating the Value of Communication. Part II (pp. 2-5). https://amecorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Demonstrating-the-Value-of-Communication-Part-II-1st-Edition.pdf
CAICEDO, G. (2006). El método de Cali. Revista Imagen, 72, 54-55.
CUTLIP, S. M., CENTER, A. H. & BROOM, G. M. (1985). Effective public relations. 6th ed. N.J: Prentice-Hall.
DIETRICH, G. (2016). Introducing the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021 https://spinsucks.com/communication/amec-integrated-evaluation-framework/
EHLING, W. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to on organization. In: Grunig, J. E. Excellence in public relations and communication management. (p. 617-637). NY/London: Routledge.
GALERANI, G. S. M. (2006). Avaliação em comunicação organizacional. Embrapa Soja. Brasília, DF: Embrapa – Assessoria de Comunicação Social. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/bitstream/doc/469010/1/ID26174AvaliacaoemComunicacaoOrganizacionalbaixa.pdf.
GLOBAL ALLIANCE (s.f.) Who we are? Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de http://www.globalalliancepr.org.
GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION SERVICES. (2015). GCS Evaluation Framework. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de https://www.davidhodder.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/GCS-Evaluation-Framework.pdf
HON, L. & GRUNIG, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de https://www.instituteforpr.org/wpcontent/uploads/Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships.pdf
HOWARD, L. (2019). Medición: cinco lecciones de la Cumbre AMEC 2019. https://www.prca.org.uk/Measurement-101-AMEC-Summit
INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS (s.f.) About. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de http://www.instituteforpr.org/ipr-measurement-commission
INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS COMMISSION ON PR MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION (2003). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs and activities. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021 https://www.instituteforpr.org//wp-content/uploads/2002_MeasuringPrograms.pdf
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATION [AMEC] (s.f.) Who we are? Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de https://amecorg.com/about/.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATION [AMEC] (s.f.) AMEC’s new Integrated Evaluation Framework. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de https://amecorg.com/amecframework/.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION OF COMMUNICATION [AMEC](2020). Principios de Barcelona 3.0. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de https://amecorg.com/es/barcelona-principles-3/.
IRAZU, J. (2000). Medición del aporte de la Comunicación Institucional al valor de la empresa y sus marcas. Argentina: UCES.
KIM, Y. (2001). Measuring the economic value of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 1 (13), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1301_2
LINDENMANN, W. K. (1993). An effectiveness yardstick to measure public relations success. Public Relations Quarterly, New York, 1 (38), 7-9. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5563764/mod_resource/content/1/Régua%20de%20Lindenmann.pdf
MACNAMARA, J. (2018). Evaluating public communication: exploring new models, standards and best practice. Oxon, New York: Routledge.
PR COUNCIL (s.f.) About us. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021 https://prcouncil.net/about/
PRIA (PUBLIC RELATIONS INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA). (2017). Measurement and evaluation framework. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de https://www.pria.com.au/resources/measurementevaluation
PRSA (s.f.) About. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021, de https://www.prsa.org/about
RIVERO, M. (2010) Bases teórico-metodológicas para la evaluación del sistema de comunicación en empresas cubanas y Organismos de la Administración Central del Estado. (Tesis doctoral) Facultad de Comunicación, Universidad de La Habana, Cuba.
RIVERO, M. (2015). Control y evaluación de la comunicación en empresas y organizaciones cubanas: Una propuesta para su abordaje. Razón y Palabra, 92, diciembre, 1-39. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1995/199543036016.pdf
RIVERO, M. (2021) Todo lo que deberías saber sobre medición y evaluación en Comunicación y Relaciones Públicas. Recuperado el 17 de octubre de 2021 de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354628222_Todo_lo_que_deberias_saber_sobre_medicion_y_evaluacion_en_Comunicacion_y_Relaciones_Publicas
RIVERO, M., FRANCO, L., M.M. Y MARTÍNEZ, S. (diciembre 2016). Diagnóstico de la Asociación de Relaciones Públicas del Caribe Mexicano, y de la situación laboral y profesional de sus miembros. Recuperado el 13 de octubre de 2021 de https://lasallecancun.edu.mx/uncategorized/diagnostico-de-la-asociacion-de-relaciones-publicas-del-caribe-mexicano-y-de-la-situacion-laboral-y-profesional-de-sus-miembros/
VAHOS, J.L. (2009). El diseño y uso de indicadores de comunicación en las organizaciones antioqueñas. Anagramas, 14 (7), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.22395/angr.v7n14a5
WATSON, T. (2001). Integrating planning and evaluations. Evaluating the public relations practice and public relations programs. In: Heath, R. L. (Ed.) III Handbook of public relations. (pp.259-268). Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452220727.n19
WILCOX, D., AUTT, P.H., AGEE, W.K. & CAMERON, G.T. (2001). Relaciones Públicas, estrategias y tácticas. Madrid: Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors publishing in this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors may separately enter into additional arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (e.g., placing it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with an acknowledgement of initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are allowed and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their own website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and higher citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).