Barcelona is now famous for two unfinished jobs, the Sagrada Familia and the Barcelona Declaration of Measurement Principles.

Judging by the tweeting coming out of the summit which produced this declaration, some of the case studies presented sounded fascinating, especially those where social media had been integrated with market and customer research to inform NPD.

I was really disappointed therefore to see the final list of principles agreed on:

1. Goal setting and measurement are fundamental aspects of any PR programmes.
2. Media measurement requires quantity and quality – cuttings in themselves are not enough.
3. Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs) do not measure the value of PR and do not inform future activity.
4. Social media can and should be measured.
5. Measuring outcomes is preferred to measuring media results.
6. Business results can and should be measured where possible.
7. Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement.

This is an unambitious, vague and obvious list and omits so much.

Shockingly, given the shifts in the media landscape in recent years, it could have been published 10 years ago, with the exception of principle four which is about the weakest statement it is possible to make on the subject.

To take a couple of examples, if goal setting and measurement are fundamental then it automatically follows that “results can be measured” and it is axiomatic that business results trump media results, otherwise what’s the point of the campaign in the first place? Having three out of a list of seven overlap so much is very poor drafting.

Sorry to be nitpicky but on five, what is the difference between an “outcome” and a “result?” Chambers online dictionary says this: “outcome (noun), the result of some action or situation.”

What is replicability? Who has ever tried to replicate a campaign? By definition the media won’t report the same thing twice so how could you ever replicate a campaign?

I could go on taking pot shots at what’s there, but let’s focus on what’s not there.

In an era where the active ‘Groundswell’ consumer has been on the rise for years and traditional media is on an accelerating decline, it is very surprising that the principles to come out of this conference seems to be concerned solely with traditional media and the word customer doesn’t appear.

Why wasn’t one of the goals of the conference to produce a document that at least acknowledges the huge shift away from traditional media towards shared content and networked consumer influence?

The other omission cannot be blamed on this conference or its declaration, but where is the strong statement from either the PRCA or the CIPR? Both have welcomed the declaration but both have stopped a long way short of suggesting that they are going to consider changing anything.

The ink is barely dry on this document, so let’s not pre-judge what the two leading industry bodies will recommend after proper discussion, but the tone that both bodies are adopting do not suggest a firm policy response.

The fact is that measurement in PR can take giant strides only by simultaneous action from three sectors;  the industry’s representative bodies, from the major agencies being utterly transparent in adopting one single approach to measurement and evaluation and from leading purchasers of PR services such as the COI and major brands all speaking as one.

The worst possible outcome is a lot of nodding of heads and then nothing. That will simply lead to this subject staying on the ‘not worth it’ pile and useless  metrics will continue to be dressed up as analysis and the industry will have blown a huge chance to elevate its status. Again.