CPRC common mistakes
CPRC · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Starts writing tactics in the first sentence of a case answer - 'launch a social campaign', 'issue a press release' - before stating a research question or what is already known about the situation.
Practitioners are rewarded in their day jobs for visible output, so under time pressure the answer defaults to activity. Case prompts supply an impatient sponsor voice that invites an immediate 'here's what we'll do', and candidates mirror it instead of diagnosing first.
What to do instead
Use a fixed pre-writing template in this order: (a) the decision the research must inform, (b) what secondary sources already establish, (c) the primary method and why it fits this question type, (d) sampling and recruitment, (e) how each plausible finding would change the plan. Do not write a channel name until all five lines exist.
Selects a research method by familiarity rather than fit - proposing a survey to understand an unfamiliar or sensitive issue, or a focus group to estimate how widespread an attitude is.
Most candidates have deep fluency with one or two tools and shallow exposure to the rest, so every problem starts to look like a nail. Method-selection rules are read once during study and rarely rehearsed against scenarios.
What to do instead
Memorise a four-row decision table and apply it explicitly: exploratory 'why/how' questions → qualitative depth (interviews, focus groups); prevalence and attitude measurement → probability-sample survey; audience segmentation and behaviour → secondary data and digital analytics; message or concept testing → experiments and A/B designs. In every answer name the sampling frame and one limitation.
Adopts the sponsoring executive's framing of the problem without challenge, so the research gathers interesting but decision-irrelevant data and the answer never contains a written problem statement.
The prompt presents the sponsor's opinion in an authoritative tone, and candidates assume the exam has already defined the problem for them. Skipping the problem statement feels like saving time.
What to do instead
Write one sentence before anything else: '[Condition] among [specific public] is producing [consequence], and we do not currently know [gap].' Then audit every proposed research item against that sentence and delete anything that would not close the gap.
Writes objectives that are really activities or aspirations - 'increase engagement', 'raise awareness', 'build relationships' - with no target public, no magnitude, no baseline and no deadline.
The goal/objective/strategy/tactic taxonomy is recognised when read but rarely practised under exam conditions, so the four categories collapse into one another in the written answer.
What to do instead
Apply a four-part check to every objective: for whom, by how much, by when, measured how. Label each line of the plan on scratch paper as GOAL, OBJECTIVE, STRATEGY or TACTIC before writing prose, and rewrite any objective that fails one of the four parts.
Presents channels and tools as strategy, so the planning section reads as a media list (media relations, social, event, newsletter) with no stated approach connecting them to the objective.
Channel names are concrete and easy to produce, while strategy statements require a causal claim about audience behaviour, which is harder to phrase quickly. Many candidates were trained to write plans as tick-lists of deliverables.
What to do instead
For each tactic write a single linking sentence: 'We will do X because [public] currently behaves [Y], which moves objective [N].' If the sentence cannot be written, the item is a tactic searching for a strategy - supply the strategy or cut the tactic.
Names 'the general public' or 'all stakeholders' as the target and never segments or prioritises, so messaging, channels and evaluation all blur together.
Case scenarios deliberately list many groups, and segmenting feels like extra work with no obvious mark attached. Candidates also worry that narrowing the audience looks like missing part of the brief.
What to do instead
Build a power/interest or influence/urgency matrix from the case facts, select two or three priority publics, and for each state what they currently believe, what they need to know or do, which channel reaches them, and what would move them. Justify the exclusions in one line.
Produces deliverables with no owners, sequencing, dependencies, budget lines or approval steps, so the implementation section cannot actually be executed on the Monday after approval.
Written answers are judged on prose, so candidates under-invest in operational detail and treat the schedule as boilerplate. Time pressure pushes them toward describing what will happen rather than who does it, when, and after what.
What to do instead
Insert a one-page action table with columns for tactic, owner, start date, end date, dependency, cost and approval required. Identify the critical path, add a 10–15 per cent time and budget contingency, and state the trigger for activating it.
Plans external communication only - no internal cascade, no approval chain, and no contingency for a missing spokesperson, a leaked document or a hostile response.
Most professional experience and most study material is outward-facing, so internal audiences and governance steps are invisible until they cause failure. Contingency planning is also the first thing cut when an answer is running long.
What to do instead
Add a stakeholder and approval map, sequence internal audiences before external ones, and attach two or three pre-approved holding statements plus explicit escalation triggers (what event, who decides, within what timeframe).
Measures outputs only - impressions, clips, reach, likes - and declares the programme a success on that basis, with no measurement plan designed before launch.
Output data is the easiest to obtain and the most familiar to report, and the case prompt often supplies media coverage figures that invite counting rather than interpretation.
What to do instead
For each objective, define one outtake KPI (awareness, understanding, attitude) and one outcome KPI (behaviour, policy change, relationship quality) with baseline, target, data source, frequency and owner. State the causal caveat and use pre/post or comparison groups where feasible.
Argues value with advertising value equivalences or a dollar value on coverage, and cites 'increased awareness' with no pre-launch baseline against which change can be shown.
AVEs survive in client reporting templates and industry habit, so candidates reproduce them as if they were accepted practice. Baselines require planning-stage discipline that is often skipped, leaving nothing to compare against.
What to do instead
Capture or reconstruct a baseline before launch; if none exists, say so as a limitation rather than implying change. Replace AVEs with agreed outcome metrics and a cost-per-outcome figure, and cite the reasoning for rejecting AVEs in one sentence when the case invites them.