| Metric name | Intent: preference |
| Standards area | Communications lifecycle (awareness, knowledge, Interest and relevance, relationship, intent and preference, and advocacy) |
| Metric description and application | Intent covers a broad range of measures. It is an attitudinal measure not behavioral and typically includes preference for a brand, product, service, issue, or topic, as well as intent to take a specific action. These actions can include purchase of a product service or brand, support for an idea or concept, willingness to try a product or service or to make an inquiry.The questions used to measure intent start with preference. In most instances, a preference measure determines the choice of a single brand, product or service to the exclusion of others. The following is the recommended structure for that question. |
| Version, date, and author | Version 1.0Last updated by David Geddes on Nov. 6, 2012 |
| Standard or guideline | Standard |
| Metric type | Communications outcome: “Quantifiable changes in awareness, knowledge, attitude, opinion, and behavior levels that occur as a result of a public relations program or campaign; an effect, consequence, or impact of a set or program of communication activities or products, and may be either short-term (immediate) or long-term.” (Don Stacks, ed. 2006. Dictionary of Public Relations Measurement. Institute for Public Relations.) |
| Detailed description.This is the actual standard, and must include full description of how to use this metrics. | The table below provides recommended survey questions to measure awareness using common survey methods. |
|
Data Collection Method |
Prototype Question |
Response Categories |
| InterviewerAdministered | I am going to read you a list of different (brands, products, services) that you can buy at your local store. Which one of these (brands, products, services) do you prefer most? | List of brands, products, services, issues or topics that are or could have been included in the communication. These are typically presented in a random order. |
| Self-Administered | A list of different (brands, products, services) that you can buy at your local store follows. Which one of these (brands, products, services) do you prefer most? Place an X in the box that best represents your answer | List of brands, products, services, issues or topics that are or could have been included in the communication. These are typically presented in a random order. |
| Source documents | David Michaelson, Ph.D. and Don W. Stacks, Ph.D. 2011. “Standardization in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation,” Public Relations Journal Vol. 5, No. 2. |
| Academic research supporting this standard. | See supporting documents. |
| Validity and reliability of the standard. This should reference formal, preferably published, research demonstrating the validity and reliability of the metric, or, in the absence of such research, the kind of research that should be conducted. | |
| Team leads and contact information | David Michaelson, Ph.D.: Teneo Strategy; Chair, Institute for Public Relations Research Fellows; and IPR Measurement CommissionProf. Don Stacks, Ph.D., University of Miami, Institute for Public Relations, and IPR Measurement Commission |
|
Data Collection Method |
Prototype Question |
Response Categories |
| Interviewer orSelf-Administered | Based on everything you have (seen/read/ heard/observed) about this (brand, product, service, issue, topic), how likely are to (purchase/try/support) this (brand, product, service, issue, topic). Would you say you are “very likely”, “somewhat likely”, “neither likely nor unlikely,” “somewhat unlikely” or “very unlikely” to (purchase/try/support) this (brand/product/service/ issue/ topic)? | The response categories for this question are typically a scale that measures an overall level of intent to take a specific action. One of the most common and reliable scales consists of five points ranging from “very likely” to “very unlikely” with a neutral midpoint. The scale is similar to that used in the credibility or believability measure described in Table 1 |
| Source documents | David Michaelson, Ph.D. and Don W. Stacks, Ph.D. 2011. “Standardization in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation,” Public Relations Journal Vol. 5, No. 2. | |
| Academic research supporting this standard. | See supporting documents. | |
| Validity and reliability of the standard. This should reference formal, preferably published, research demonstrating the validity and reliability of the metric, or, in the absence of such research, the kind of research that should be conducted. | ||
| Team leads and contact information | David Michaelson, Ph.D.: Teneo Strategy; Chair, Institute for Public Relations Research Fellows; and IPR Measurement CommissionProf. Don Stacks, Ph.D., University of Miami, Institute for Public Relations, and IPR Measurement Commission | |
| Revisions | August 31, 2012 | David Geddes |
|
Data Collection Method |
Prototype Question |
Response Categories |
| Interviewer | Administered | I am going to read you a series of statements about the (brand/product/service/ issue/ topic). There are no right or wrong answers, we are interested in how much you agree or disagree with the statements. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree? |
| Self-Administered | Please respond to the following statements about the (brand/product/service/ issue/ topic). There are no right or wrong answers, we are interested in how much you agree or disagree with the statements.Place an X in the box that best represents your answer for each statement. | The response categories for this question are typically a scale that measures an overall level of agreement. One of the most common and reliable scales consists of five points ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” with a neutral midpoint. The scale is similar to that used in the interest measure described above. |
| Source documents | David Michaelson, Ph.D. and Don W. Stacks, Ph.D. 2011. “Standardization in Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation,” Public Relations Journal Vol. 5, No. 2. |
| Academic research supporting this standard. | See supporting documents. |
| Validity and reliability of the standard. This should reference formal, preferably published, research demonstrating the validity and reliability of the metric, or, in the absence of such research, the kind of research that should be conducted. | |
| Team leads and contact information | David Michaelson, Ph.D.: Teneo Strategy; Chair, Institute for Public Relations Research Fellows; and IPR Measurement CommissionProf. Don Stacks, Ph.D., University of Miami, Institute for Public Relations, and IPR Measurement Commission |
