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

I have shared my thoughts on this topic across multiple LinkedIn posts, and I felt compelled to provide a structured education on the subject.

Measurement education is a core pillar of AMEC Measurement and Evaluation , and as a strong advocate for data-driven PR, I believe it is crucial to guide PR professionals through this recurring challenge.

The reality is simple: If sales are not part of your key performance indicators (KPIs), then Return on Objective (ROO) should be your holy grail, not ROI.

However, for PR campaigns where sales are indeed a primary goal, PR professionals cannot work in isolation — they need to engage with the “three wise men”: Sales, Finance, and Marketing.

A fundamental mistake many PR practitioners make is attempting to justify PR’s success using ROI without understanding the financial principles behind it.

ROI, in its true form, is a financial metric that calculates the profitability of an investment using the formula: ROI (%) = (Net Profit / Cost of Investment) x 100. For PR professionals aiming to showcase ROI, collaboration with the Finance team is essential to align media metrics with revenue generation.

However, in most cases, PR is not a direct sales function, which means using ROI as a blanket metric leads to misinterpretation and misplaced expectations.

This is why AMEC’s Barcelona Principles (which emphasize outcome-based measurement over outdated methods) encourage PR professionals to focus on measurable objectives rather than vanity metrics like Advertising Value Equivalency (AVE).

For those unfamiliar with these principles, I strongly recommend exploring them as a foundation for modern PR measurement.

One of the most misleading approaches in PR measurement is relying on AVE to demonstrate ROI. To put this into perspective, AVE in PR is like measuring the quality of a meal based solely on the price of its ingredients. Just because a dish contains expensive components does not mean it tastes good or satisfies the customer.

Similarly, AVE assigns a monetary value to media coverage based on ad rates but fails to measure the true impact, sentiment, or effectiveness of PR efforts.

If a PR professional presents AVE as ROI, they are essentially equating visibility with tangible business outcomes, which is a flawed and outdated perspective.

The goal should always be to measure what matters — impact, sentiment, engagement, and business outcomes — rather than placing a fictitious monetary value on earned media.

As a PR measurement specialist with over a decade of experience, I have consistently advocated for the prioritization of ROO over ROI for PR campaigns that do not have direct sales objectives. PR’s role is often about shaping perception, building credibility, and enhancing reputation — elements that do not always have an immediate or direct financial impact.

ROO provides a structured framework for evaluating PR performance based on predefined, measurable objectives.

By aligning PR efforts with specific business goals — whether it be increasing brand awareness, driving website traffic, improving customer sentiment, or strengthening stakeholder relationships — PR professionals can provide meaningful insights without force-fitting sales metrics where they do not belong.

For PR to demonstrate true ROI when necessary, it must integrate seamlessly with Sales, Finance, and Marketing. Without correlating PR metrics with their data, PR teams cannot accurately tell the story of their contribution to revenue generation.

Marketing provides valuable insights into lead generation, Sales tracks conversions, and Finance ensures financial accountability.

When these three functions work together, PR professionals can move beyond justifying their efforts with media impressions and start proving their impact in terms of business growth.

This is why aligning client or executive expectations from the onset is critical. By setting realistic measurement parameters, PR professionals can avoid the trap of being asked to prove ROI on campaigns that were never designed to drive direct sales in the first place.

The path to effective PR measurement is rooted in education, collaboration, and the right frameworks.

We must continue advocating for methodologies that reflect PR’s strategic value — beyond press clippings, beyond AVEs, and certainly beyond misaligned expectations.

Measurement is not about justifying PR’s existence; it is about demonstrating PR’s impact with the right metrics that align with business goals.

As PR professionals, our focus should always be on setting SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) objectives that align with organizational priorities. This way, measurement becomes a tool for strategy rather than just a reporting mechanism.

As we move forward, I encourage PR professionals to embrace continuous learning, engage in industry conversations, and challenge outdated measurement methods.

PR measurement is not static — it evolves with trends, technology, and business needs. Let us elevate our practice by ensuring that measurement is not an afterthought but an integral part of our communication strategy from the start.

Would love to hear others’ thoughts on this!

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

Their success has been bolstered by the impressive data shared with the media in the second quarter, which has helped sustain positive public perception and confidence in these industries.

An independent analysis of the media performance and prominence of the CEOs of Nigerian Commercial Banks, Insurance Companies and Telecommunication Providers for the second quarter was conducted by the leading Media Intelligence and Public relations audit agency, P+ Measurement Services. 

This media analysis monitored more than 1.3 million online publications from blogs, news sites, broadcasts, forums, and digital media in the local and global media space, as well as about 5,115 print publications (including daily, weekly, and monthly publications), from which different metadata was extracted, including the sentiment of reporters, editors, publishers, and opinion writers from various online and print publications, spokesperson analysis, CEOs performances, and other topics.

Through detailed media data gathering, analysis, and audit of salient valid PR metrics of 27 Commercial Banks, top 10 leading Insurance companies, and top 4 Telecommunications Providers.

The reports ranked the top CEOs (Commercial Banks, Telecommunication, and Insurance) prominent in the Online and Print media.

Banking Sector

According to the analysis, Yemisi Edun of First City Monument Bank (FCMB), led the leaderboard with a 23% share of media coverage, indicating a strong media presence and influence in the banking sector. Closely behind were Oliver Alawuba of United Bank for Africa (UBA) with 22% and Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe of Fidelity Bank capturing 22% of media coverage, demonstrating significant visibility and engagement within the industry.

Moruf Oseni of Wema Bank came in next with 18% and Wole Adeniyi of Stanbic IBTC Bank rounded out the chart with 16%, showing a notable but comparatively lower media presence.

This distribution of media coverage highlights the competitive landscape and varying levels of media engagement among top banking executives.

Insurance Sector

In the insurance sector, the media performance audit report revealed that Akinjide Orimolade of Stanbic IBTC Insurance Limited had the most media exposure at 73%.

Lesi Gboyega of Leadway Assurance with 15% and Kunle Ahmed of AXA Mansard Insurance followed closely with 9%.

Eddie Efekoha of Consolidated Hallmark Insurance with 2% and Andrew Ikehua of NEM Insurance with 1% media exposure.

This distribution highlights a competitive media landscape among insurance executives, with varying levels of visibility and engagement reflecting their influence and presence in the sector.

Comparing both sectors, it is evident that top executives in banking and insurance are actively working to maintain significant media profiles to enhance their brands’ visibility and market influence.

Telecommunications sector 

In the telecommunications sector, Karl Toriola of MTN Nigeria led the media performance with 67% share of media coverage, highlighting MTN’s dominant presence and influence in the industry.

Carl Cruz of Airtel Nigeria followed with 31%, indicating substantial visibility and engagement.

In contrast, Mike Adenuga of Globacom had lower exposure, with only 2% media coverage.

This distribution underscores the disparity in media engagement among telecommunications executives, with MTN and Airtel maintaining strong media profiles.

Comparing the telecommunications sector to the banking and insurance sectors reveals that media coverage is highly concentrated among a few key players, highlighting the varying strategies and successes in maintaining media presence across different industries.

Overall, the analysis reveals significant disparities in media engagement across the banking, insurance, and telecommunications sectors. Key executives like Yemisi Edun, Akinjide Orimolade, and Karl Toriola have successfully maintained strong media profiles, highlighting their influence within their respective industries.

This highlights the importance of strategic media engagement for maintaining visibility and influence in a competitive landscape.

More About P+ Measurement Services

P+ Measurement Services is Nigeria’s leading independent media intelligence consultancy that focuses on delivering detailed media monitoring, measurement, evaluation, and analysis across all media channels. P+ is internationally recognized as a PR measurement and evaluation consultant in Nigeria with activities being governed/regulated by AMEC (The International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication).