And when it comes to sentiment analysis, many of us have been led by tradition, not truth.

In my constant pursuit to help PR and comms professionals access metrics rooted in objectivity and research, I had to take a deeper look into how sentiment is currently being measured.

After spending time digging into the methodology, analysing patterns, and comparing outcomes, it became clear: sentiment analysis by frequency has overstayed its welcome.

“Too often, we focus on counting sentiment rather than weighing it — frequency tells us how much, but deeper analysis tells us how much it matters.”

For too long, we have boxed sentiment into just three labels — positive, negative, and neutral — and then celebrated (or panicked) based on how large each segment appears.

If a brand has 60% positive sentiment, someone somewhere is already serving small chops and cutting cake. But ask the hard question: what does that 60% actually mean?

Does it carry weight? Is it impactful? Is it meaningful? I recall being in a strategy session where an agency CEO saw a 60% positive sentiment report and asked, “So… should I be excited or worried?” And truthfully, the data didn’t answer that.

In another situation, a client saw 35% negative sentiment and wanted to escalate to crisis mode. Again, I had to ask, what kind of negative are we talking about?

“When it comes to sentiment analysis, it’s not enough to know the quantity of sentiment; you need to understand the intensity and quality of that sentiment. Without that, data can lead you astray.”

You see, media frequency analysis doesn’t tell you intensity. It doesn’t ask, how positive is this positivity? Or how damaging is this negativity?

In reality, a comment like “The brand dey try sha” (Nigerian slang for “they are doing okay”) and another saying“ This brand saved my life!” are both tagged as positive but are clearly worlds apart in tone and impact. That is where the problem lies — we have focused too much on counting sentiment without weighing it.

Research provides a more meaningful approach. The empirical formula I recommend is:

Sentiment Score (StSc) = (Number of Positive Mentions – Number of Negative Mentions) / Total Number of Mentions

This gives us a normalized sentiment index between -1 and +1, where 0 is neutral, and the extremes show very strong positivity or negativity.

So if a brand has 3 positive and 2 negative mentions out of 10 total, the score becomes (3 – 2)/10 = 0.1 — slightly positive. But if it is 8 positive and 1 negative, the score is 0.7 — that is significant. Now compare that to simply saying “80% positive,” and you see why frequency alone is not enough. The difference is in the depth of interpretation.

This formula still isn’t widely used across the media intelligence space, but one company that’s already ahead of the curve is Truescope (North America) — where my friend and industry expert, Todd Murphy , serves as President of North America.

“Objective metrics that account for sentiment weight and distribution are what truly empower PR strategies. It’s not about having more positive mentions — it’s about understanding the level of positivity and negativity and its true impact on brand perception.”

To fix this gap in analysis, we have developed the Future-Proof Sentiment Score Framework – A P+ Measurement Services Proprietary Sentiment Score Framework. This includes a more advanced Sentiment Weight Score and Distribution Matrix, which doesn’t stop at “positive/negative/neutral,” but goes further to classify sentiment into strongly, moderately, and slightly — for both positives and negatives.

This matrix brings clarity to brands and communications teams. It helps you know when to celebrate, when to adjust, and when to truly raise the red flag.

Starting from Q2 2025, all clients of P+ Measurement Services will have access to this upgraded sentiment analysis dashboard, alongside a dedicated dashboard that tracks the media performance of competitive CEOs. And I can say with confidence — it changes the game.

“Let’s stop being impressed by pie charts that look shiny but don’t provide actionable insight. Understanding the meaning behind sentiment and the true impact on your brand is what matters.”

I will give you a practical example. A multinational brand we monitored recently saw 35% negative sentiment and was ready to call a crisis meeting.

But our deeper analysis showed 80% of that negativity was slightly negative—things like delayed customer service or pricing feedback.

Meanwhile, their strongly positive mentions were increasing daily, driven by user experience reviews. Instead of reacting emotionally, the brand realigned calmly. No panic, just action. That is the power of context.

So, let us stop being impressed by shiny pie charts. Let us stop reporting frequency without understanding what it means. A sentiment report that doesn’t answer so what? and what next? is simply not useful. This is why I always say: vanity metrics may look nice in a report, but they can’t guide strategy. Objective, research-backed metrics can.

“Vanity metrics can’t guide strategy. Only research-backed, objective metrics help you turn insights into action.”

At the end of the day, this isn’t just about a better dashboard. It is about moving our industry forward. For those interested in the technical side, I am happy to share more about lexicon-based sentiment scoring and resources like the Harvard General Inquirer—empirical research that goes beyond assumptions and digs into real language science.

But even without the jargon, the message is simple: frequency tells you how much, but only deeper analysis tells you how much it matters.

*Philip Odiakose is a leader and advocate of public relations monitoring, measurement, evaluation and intelligence in Africa. He is also the Chief Media Analyst at P+ Measurement Services, a member of AMEC, NIPR, AMCRON, ACIOM and Founding Member of AMEC Lab Initiative

The post Why Analyzing Media Sentiment by Frequency is Holding You Back appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

PR agencies play a critical role in helping brands amplify their stories and enhance public perception. However, an increasingly concerning trend is the practice of PR agencies evaluating their own work.

While on the surface this may appear convenient and cost-effective for clients, it is a practice fraught with potential bias and subjectivity, ultimately undermining the integrity of performance evaluation.

The core function of any PR effort is to establish credibility and trust with audiences, stakeholders, and the public.

These agencies are well-equipped to handle strategic communications and media relations, but when it comes to assessing their own performance, objectivity becomes a major concern.

Agencies are naturally inclined to showcase their successes and minimize their shortcomings. This conflict of interest can result in overly optimistic reports that may not accurately reflect the true impact of a PR campaign, leading to misguided decisions by clients.

One of the fundamental principles of PR measurement, as emphasized by the International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC), is the need for transparency and independence. For any organization to fully understand the effectiveness of its media outreach, third-party evaluation is essential.

This is particularly true in industries where reputation management is critical to long-term success. When PR agencies judge their own work, it is difficult to escape the influence of self-preservation, and reports may end up highlighting metrics that paint a favourable picture while neglecting areas where improvement is needed.

The Importance of Objective PR Measurement

To ensure a fair and accurate evaluation of PR performance, brands must engage independent PR measurement agencies. These firms bring an external, unbiased perspective, using data-driven methodologies to assess media coverage, sentiment, and performance.

Independent firms have no stake in the outcome of the campaigns they evaluate, allowing them to provide clients with an honest, unfiltered analysis. This objectivity is key to identifying blind spots and improving future strategies.

Moreover, objective PR measurement helps brands make better-informed decisions about where to allocate resources.

By relying on impartial data, companies can adjust their messaging, target the right audiences, and invest in campaigns that truly resonate with stakeholders. This ensures that PR strategies are rooted in reality rather than wishful thinking.

Case Study: A Leading Nigerian Commercial Bank

A prime example of the risks associated with PR agencies evaluating their own work can be found in the case of a leading commercial bank in Nigeria.

The bank, one of the top financial institutions in the country, had been working with a reputable PR agency to manage its media relations and corporate communications.

The agency was responsible for promoting the bank’s image, particularly during a period of expansion and the launch of several new digital banking services.

After several months of media outreach and PR campaigns, the agency delivered its performance report to the bank’s senior management.

According to the report, the bank had achieved extensive media coverage in major publications, with overwhelmingly positive sentiment from the public. The agency cited the number of press mentions, the reach of articles, and the favorable tone of coverage as evidence of the campaign’s success.

However, the bank’s executives began to notice a disconnect between the glowing report and the actual feedback they were receiving from customers and stakeholders on the ground.

Feeling that the report might not provide the full picture, the bank decided to engage an independent PR measurement consultancy to conduct a thorough audit of its media performance. The results were eye-opening.

While the agency had indeed secured media coverage, the independent analysis revealed that a significant portion of the coverage was neutral or lacked engagement from the bank’s target audience.

Furthermore, the sentiment analysis showed that, contrary to the agency’s report, there had been a notable increase in negative feedback on online media platforms regarding the bank’s customer service and digital banking experience.

The independent consultancy’s report provided a more nuanced understanding of the bank’s media presence, highlighting areas where the messaging had failed to connect with key stakeholders.

This prompted the bank to reassess its PR strategy, leading to targeted improvements in communication with customers and a more focused approach to media outreach.

Had the bank solely relied on the agency’s self-evaluation, it may have continued with a misguided perception of its public image.

Why Independence Matters

This case underscores the importance of objective, third-party evaluation in PR. By relying on independent PR measurement firms, organizations can access an impartial assessment that is grounded in data and free from the bias that naturally arises when agencies judge their own work. Independence in PR measurement ensures that both successes and shortcomings are identified, allowing brands to improve continuously.

In contrast, when PR agencies are tasked with evaluating their own campaigns, they may be tempted to overstate the impact of their efforts or focus on vanity metrics that look impressive but provide little value in terms of actionable insights. Metrics such as the number of media mentions or the reach of articles can be misleading if not contextualized with deeper analysis of audience engagement, sentiment, and the alignment of coverage with the brand’s objectives.

Moving Towards Transparent PR Measurement

For brands looking to establish long-term credibility and trust with their audiences, independent PR measurement is not just a best practice—it is a necessity.

The complexities of modern media landscapes demand sophisticated services and methodologies to accurately assess the effectiveness of PR campaigns. Independent consultancies are better positioned to provide this level of analysis, as they are not influenced by the need to justify their work to clients.

Conclusion

In an industry where reputation is everything, it is vital for PR agencies and their clients to embrace objectivity and transparency in performance evaluation. While PR agencies excel at crafting narratives and engaging with the media, their role should not extend to measuring the success of their own work. Doing so invites bias and can lead to flawed assessments that undermine the effectiveness of future campaigns.

For brands seeking to maximize the impact of their PR efforts, the solution is clear: engage independent PR measurement firms. These firms provide the objective, data-driven insights that are necessary for understanding media performance and making informed decisions about future strategies. By prioritizing independent evaluation, organizations can ensure that their PR campaigns are not only successful in the short term but also aligned with long-term goals for growth and reputation management.

*Philip Odiakose is a leader and advocate of Media Monitoring, PR measurement and evaluation in Nigeria. He is also the Chief Media Analyst at P+ Measurement Services, a member of AMEC, NIPR and AMCRON

The post Why Letting PR Agencies Evaluate Themselves Could Be Hurting Your Brand appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.

Danbatta, stated this in a keynote address delivered at a two-day International Conference of the Association of Media and Communication Researchers of Nigeria (AMCRON), which ended at the weekend.

The Conference, the second by the Association, was attended by numerous leading scholars from media and mass communication, as well as from tangential academic disciplines.

Speaking on the theme: “Influence of Communication Policies on Digital Revolution in Nigeria”, Danbatta, who was represented by Ismail Adedigba, NCC’s Director, Research and Development, stated that communication policies are essentially blueprints and strategies, marked by plans for the development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in a way that nudges people to harness opportunities of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) through the embrace of digital culture across sectors by individual, businesses and institutions.

He explained that, through diligent implementation of telecommunication policies, which have triggered digital revolution, the media and entire field of mass communication have been impacted through innovations that have revolutionised production and consumption of mass communication contents, and that make communication easily accessible, more affordable and exchanges faster.

Danbatta, while tracing the trajectory of growth in the telecoms industry from 1960 till date, said the past decades have witnessed formulation of various policies and laws for developing the industry but remarkable growth in the sector started after the sector’s liberalization in 2001.

He said through diligent implementation of policies, vision plans and strategic regulatory frameworks by the NCC, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders in the industry, there is increased access to digital services and the media industry is being shaped in terms of patterns of information dissemination through multiple platforms while digital revolution has revealed a new vista of research areas for scholars in the field of mass communication.

“Today, the active telecom subscribers have grown significantly to 212.2 million from about 400,000 aggregate telephone lines in the country as of 2000, on the eve of liberalisation. This represents a teledensity of 111 per cent. Basic Internet subscriptions grew from zero ground to 152.7 million now, while broadband subscriptions stand at over 86 million, representing a 45.09 per cent penetration as of July 2022.

“The industry has also become a major contributor to our national economy with the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry contributing 18.94 per cent to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as of the second quarter of 2022, according to the latest data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). From this, the telecommunications sector alone contributed 15 per cent to GDP.

“The ICT contribution to GDP is, by far, the second largest contributor to the national economy aside from the agriculture sector. From less than $500 million investment in 2001, the investment profile in the nation’s telecommunications sector has also surpassed $70 billion. The telecommunication sector has also created direct and indirect jobs for millions of Nigerians to date,” Danbatta said in his keynote speech.

Danbatta expressed hope that just as the liberalisation policies have worked quantifiably for Nigeria’s progress, yielding exponential results, the Commission is committed to the implementation of the various extant economic recovery plans, digital economy policies, the national broadband plan as well as strategic management plans which have been streamlined in NCC Strategic Vision Plans.

The EVC promised that the NCC will continue to ensure more quantum leap and retain its current leadership role in the telecommunications space to lead Nigeria into the next level of development. “To achieve this, the NCC will continue to strengthen collaboration with the media professionals and communication research-focused bodies such as AMCRON, towards creating an environment where stakeholders can leverage digital infrastructure to achieve greater efficiency in what they do,” he said.

Chairman, Governing Council of AMRCON, Prof. Ralph Akinfeleye; President of AMCRON, Prof. Eserinune Mojaye; and AMCRON Secretary-General, Prof. Abiodun Adeniyi, among other participants, commended the NCC for the role it is playing in putting Nigeria on the global map of digital economy and culture.

They particularly thanked NCC for its consistent, impacting collaboration with scholars, researchers, and the entrepreneurship of knowledge production.

The post Telecom Policies Enhancing Digital Access, Media and Knowledge Production, says Danbatta appeared first on Tech | Business | Economy.