Evaluating your communications partner after 90 days
The 90-day review must compare the objectives, deliverables, operation and first observable effects. It is used to decide what to continue, correct or stop, without confusing activity and progress.
Set the starting point at launch
It is difficult to evaluate a mission if expectations have never been stabilized. From the start, document the objectives, priority audiences, expected decisions and available data. Identify dependencies: legal validation, access to experts, availability of the manager or institutional calendar. They influence what the agency can actually produce.
Set a three-month review as a steering step, not as a magic reputation deadline. Some effects are visible quickly; others require more time and appropriate measurement. The review must be able to conclude that an indicator is not yet interpretable, rather than forcing a success story.
Examine four levels of performance
| Level | Review question |
|---|---|
| Execution | Are the agreed deliverables reliable and delivered on time? |
| Utility | Did they help an important decision or interaction? |
| Effects observed | What has changed among audiences, and with what evidence? |
| Operation | Are arbitrations, validations and alerts effective? |
This grid is a proposal from Belief System. It can be compared to the AMEC measurement principles, but must be adapted to the mandate. A public affairs mission, executive support and a media relations program cannot be judged using a single meter.
Prepare a common and contradictory file
The agency should provide deliverables, scope consumption, decisions taken, difficulties and recommendations. The company must provide its own feedback: quality of use, missing information, validation delays and internal changes. Evaluating the relationship involves looking at both sides of the work organization.
Choose a few representative sequences and reconstruct how they happened. When was an alert given? Who arbitrated? Which version was validated? This factual feedback is more useful than a general discussion about responsiveness. It makes it possible to distinguish a problem of method, capacity, priority or cooperation.
Interpreting differences without creating causality
A fictitious scenario: the media coverage is progressing, but the messages remain imprecise. The volume should not close the evaluation; the priority may become the quality of evidence and the preparation of experts. Conversely, a mission may have avoided a poorly prepared announcement without producing a dramatic impact.
Document external factors: news, market developments, regulatory decisions or incidents. Do not automatically attribute a change to the agency. Distinguish between measured result, plausible contribution and hypothesis to be tested. If the data is missing, propose a proportionate way to collect it in the next cycle.
End with decisions, leaders and a date
The meeting must result in a short plan: actions pursued, actions decided, changes in scope, responsible and deadlines. Identify decisions that require budgetary arbitration. An unowned recommendation list cannot verify progress at the next review.
Prepare together for the next quarter: what issues become priorities, what evidence must be produced, what deadlines must change? If collaboration does not work, organize a documented transition with return of files and useful information. A successful review improves the ability to decide, including when it leads to reducing or terminating the mandate.
Sources and benchmarks
- AMEC — Barcelona Principles 4.0 [1]
From subject to action
Reputation dashboard: model and indicators
A reputation dashboard that distinguishes activities, signals, understanding and decisions, with a CSV model to adapt.
Strategy of communications teams
Link communication priorities to organizational decisions.
Media relations: assessing an agency beyond its contacts
A media relations agency is judged on its understanding of the subject, its ability to produce solid information and the quality of its work with editorial staff. The size of a journalists’ file does not allow this value to be measured.
Agency fees: how to compare proposals with different approaches
Compare a complete cost for a common scope: advice, production, seniority, coordination, availability and costs. Two amounts are only comparable if the responsibilities and exclusions are explicit.
Prepare your selection
To start, a few lines are enough: your organization, the decision to prepare, the audiences concerned and the deadline. Confidential documents will then be shared within an agreed framework.
Write to Belief SystemIndia–France: prepare a shared crisis response
For an Indian business in France, first decide who can act locally while headquarters establishes the facts. Assign a French response owner, an Indian executive sponsor and backups for approvals across time zones. Maintain one incident record, distinguishing confirmed impact from investigation hypotheses. For personal data breaches, the CNIL differentiates documentation, regulator notification and information for affected individuals according to the risk. The communication workflow should support the duties established by specialists, with French-language customer support and consistent headquarters briefings.
Illustrative scenario: an Indian technology provider discovers an incident affecting a French customer portal. The French team needs verified information about service availability and practical assistance while the technical team investigates in India. Pre-agreed escalation rules allow a holding statement and an update time without waiting for a complete root-cause report. Prepare customer, employee and media answers from the same evidence. After resolution, explain the corrective actions that can be substantiated and review the response gaps. Neither silence nor an unsupported assurance of complete safety helps restore trust.
This edition retains the French and European context of the analysis. The market note addresses its use by Indian headquarters and their French or European teams.
Local edition ·
Read the French source