Measurement Matters

Comparing examples of teenage and thirty something media consumption

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Gareth) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:10:00 +0100

While reading the recent Morgan Stanley report on teenage media consumption (previous post) written by a 15 year old intern, it got me thinking. Would I, a man twice his age, have much in common in terms of media consumption?

My girlfriend might suggest that I have more than just media consumption in common with a teenage boy; I’ll try not to go there and stay on topic.

Below I’ve summed up some of the opinions presented in the report and compared them with my own habits. In doing so I was initially surprised at the level of similarities (see table below) while finding the differences more obvious.

Cost is a clear issue for a teenager, where quality is more important for adults. Work/Career is not a consideration for teenagers, but a regular reason for my consumption of media which extends to engagement with some social media.

The high levels of similarities could indicate that:

A) I’m still very much a teenager at heart

B) Our media consumption may be in line with a general trend (at least among 15-35 males)

C) it’s indicative of a wider trend in media consumption/engagement

My personnel view is that ‘C’ is the most likely answer. If differences in consumption brought about by ‘cost’ and ‘career’ are set aside, what is left is not a radical first hand account of a teenage media habits but a fairly typical profile for the media consumption of a technology savvy generation.

Media	15 yr old male	32 Year old male
Radio	Streaming sites replace traditional radio	Podcasts of traditional radio shows and streaming sites replaced traditional radio
TV	Limited traditional TV Cost defines choice of service Streaming media preferred High avoidance of ads	Variety of traditional TV Quality defines choice of service Some use of steaming media High avoidance of ads
Newspapers	Print completely replaced by online Unwilling to pay for content	Print completely replaced by online Unwilling to pay for content
Internet	Social networking emphasis on friendship	Heavy use of a wide variety of social networks with emphasis on friendship and business
Gaming	Cost defines choice (Wii, Xbox)	Quality defines choice (PS3)
Directories	Replaced by search engines	Replaced by search engines
Viral Marketing	Preferred and supported Sceptical of traditional advertising	High avoidance of advertising but appreciate creativity
Music	Emphasis on cost (free preferred) Cross platform streaming and legal/Illegal downloading common	Legitimate ownership of original hard copy, data transferred to a variety of platforms, iPhones, MP3, MacBook etc
Cinema	Frequent use with cost a key issue	Infrequent use with quality/time a key issue
Devices	Low cost mobile phones used for a variety of purposes	High cost devices with multiple devices for work and personal use

OMG! New report on teenage media consumption! :-)

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Gareth) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:22:00 +0100

At Metrica, as well as conducting our own research into media consumption and lifestyle habits, we always have our ear to the ground and take an interest in news, data and research relating to our relationship with the media.

Frankly, it can sometimes be difficult to keep pace with the plethora of external research and opinion in the professional, academic and online communities.

Given this exposure we can be a cynical bunch, (well, I know I am) but we do bounce emails round the office, share knowledge and argue our relative stances whenever possible.

This week an FT article referenced a recent report produced by Morgan Stanley. The report does not contain the insight of senior analysts, nor a statistically valid data sample from a wide ranging academic study. It simply contains the opinion of a 15 year old intern on the media consumption of the average teenager, more or less in his own style.

It’s notoriously difficult to research the consumer habits, media or otherwise, of a younger teenage audience, so understandably the report is creating a bit of a buzz.

Whether you agree or disagree with his opinions, think the findings obvious, or dislike the fact that there’s no supporting research to validate the findings, it’s refreshing to get a forthright opinion on teenage media consumption from someone who is technically an expert on teens.

A tip of the hat to Morgan Stanley for publishing the report, a link to which can be found here.

Glastonbury - a great stage for charities

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Cat Murphy) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:27:00 +0100

Reading John Grounds from the NSPCC’s Not-for-profit blog in PR Week I was interested to read about how visible Water Aid, Greenpeace, Oxfam and Action for Children were at the recent Glastonbury festival. This made me wonder how much media exposure these and other charites achieved during the festival.

Following the publication of our June third sector benchmarking report Charity Radar, Greenpeace and Oxfam did indeed get significant amounts of media exposure, including coverage of Oxfam’s Paint your Face Blue campaign for climate change, as well as a call from Greenpeace for Glastonbury revellers to form the largest human No in protest against airport expansion.

However, we also found that in fact Save the Children were the charity to gain the most press coverage surrounding their presence at Glastonbury; despite not being an official partner. Over a third of their coverage in June talked about how celebrities are backing their campaign to prevent child deaths in Africa, with a focus on the support they were getting as well as detailing the other festivals they are attending to further promote their cause.

Given sustained pressure on budgets and fundraising declines we also noted that the media coverage achieved by Save the Children meant they reached 17% of people who regularly donate to children’s charities equating to just over 3 million people. When investigating further they specifically reached 18% (103,000 people) of 18-35 year olds who regularly donate to Save the Children itself, and 15% (790,000 people) of 18-35 year olds who regularly donate to children’s charities. Given the average age of the Glastonbury audience this shows what a great event Glastonbury is at reaching a core fundraising base to encourage further donations.

However, we know that a lot of people enjoy the festival from the comfort of their armchairs, me included! So we noted with interest that 31% (1.4 million people) aged 36+ and who prefer charity marketing to reach them via a TV or radio programme were reached through coverage of Glastonbury. For Action for Children this tells a great story for the person holding the banner at the front of the stage during the Bruce Springsteen set. They were able to increase the charities awareness to those people not attending the event, but who are open to the activities of charities and therefore a possible further fundraising channel. Therefore, I second John’s comments to that person and pass on my congratulations for perseverance and for being so media savvy, whether they knew it or not!

Charity Excellence

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Cat Murphy) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:08:00 +0100

A few of us here at Metrica were lucky enough to go to the CIPR Excellence Awards last night and it’s fair to say that they were excellent! We had a small vested interest, as sponsor, but also as a number of our clients were nominated for the work they have done over the last year.

So we were very pleased to see both the British Heart Foundation awarded for their Christmas Campaign in the Consumer Relations category, as well as the Royal British Legion for their Poppy Appeal Launch from Basra in the Broadcast category. Congratulations to both of them. We were also pleased to see other charities picking up awards throughout the night, including Action for Children, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Macmillan Cancer Support.

Given the tough economic conditions, with falling donations and pr budgets under continuing pressure, it is great to see how well the sector is doing in achieving excellence in PR despite restricted budgets. It goes to show how much can be achieved through creative and innovative pr whatever the circumstances.

We hope to see even more charities pick up awards next year, as we know how much good work is going on everyday in the sector. Congratulations again to the winners and to those nominated.

The changing media landscape

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Michelle) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:51:00 +0100

In the 24 hours after Michael Jackson’s death, search engine, Google was inundated with hits to its website by internet users searching for information on the pop star. Likewise, Twitter, which like Google was also overwhelmed by the millions of users trying to access it, so much so that the site actually crashed. Upon hearing these facts it got me thinking about how the way we consume our news, when it comes to major world events, has changed so rapidly over a short space of time.

During the first Gulf War in 1991 there was no internet, and cable television had not yet reached Australian shores [for those of us living there at the time]. As a news junkie I recall the thrill of being able to switch channels between our four free-to-air stations who were televising ‘special’ round the clock broadcasts from CNN, BBC and Sky News.

Then, in 1997 when Princess Diana died the internet had already been in existence for a few years and most of the national papers had online versions which were being up dated regularly. And yes, by this time we did have cable television in Australia.

Moving on to the events of September 11, and by this point in time we were watching the news live as world events unfolded so that we could feel as if we were there ourselves. Many of us can remember the horrific scenes of watching the second plane hit the World Trade Centre. It was also at the same time when the concept of citizen journalism was introduced whereby the news we consumed was generated by bystanders thanks to the technology of mobile phones.

As you can see, the way, and even the instantaneous nature in which we consume our news has changed and manifested itself into many shapes and sizes. Today, in 2009, we are faced with an abundance of choice as to how we choose to receive our news: Twitter, RSS feeds, text messaging services and the like. So, by the time another milestone or big event takes place, it does make me wonder what advances will have taken place given the constantly changing media landscape.

An open letter to PR Week in response to their article "COI turns spotlight on evaluation"

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Richard Bagnall) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:32:00 +0100

This week PR Week published an article on how the Central Office of Information (COI) is turning the spotlight on PR evaluation. This is Metrica's response to the article which has also been sent to the magazine and its website.

Dear Sir,

As MD of Metrica, one of the COI's 5 roster agencies that you refer to in your article "Central Office of Information turns spotlight on evaluation", we welcome the debate created by the COI's recent evaluation supplier comparison. Your article clearly highlights the problems with using differing measurement techniques and the confusion that they can cause. This is an area that we too have been campaigning on for a number of years.

I was a little surprised however by the angle of your article. Particularly so as I was in the audience at AMEC's recent European PR Measurement Summit at which Neil Martinson presented the information to which you refer.

Neil was at pains to explain that the numbers that he quoted were not to be directly compared to each other but rather were reflections on the different methodologies that different measurement agencies use. We all have different methods of measuring PR which explains why the COI has a roster of a number of agencies - the COI's clients are able to choose which agency with which methodology is most appropriate to their needs.

So, favourability ratings, impact scores and audience exposure metrics are not done in the same way and are not comparable from one agency to another. For example, the 93 million figure that you quote is clearly not an audience reach figure in terms of actual number of people but will instead be an OTS (opportunity to see) figure preferred by one of the other agencies on the roster. Metrica enables our clients to look at audience exposure in a similar manner as the ad agencies do - we disaggregate reading, viewing and listening habits to provide an actual number of people reached and in the target audience and the frequency of exposure. In this particular case, Metrica quoted a figure of 24.6 million adults reached with an average exposure to the coverage of 3.6 times.

Neil also has explained that the main thrust of the COI's work here is not a call for a magic bullet but to ensure that the measurement companies standardise some key areas of data collection - like the auditing bodies (e.g. JICREG, RAJAR, ABC etc) from where we all source our data. This is also something that Metrica supports.

In answer to Ali Gee of 3 Monkeys well made points about behavioural change, there is reassuring news. Metrica, and many other AMEC members, also offer additional metrics to go beyond measuring outputs (e.g. standard media analysis metrics like tone and messages) to outcomes - what was the effect on sales, share price, reputation etc. Via econometric modelling we are also able to demonstrate how statistically likely it was that the PR work had been responsible for the changes. Measurement of outcomes was not asked for in the COI's brief on this occasion to its roster agencies, hence it was not supplied.

The call for an industry magic bullet to PR measurement has been ongoing for the 14 years that I have worked in the evaluation industry. It is fraught with danger and has not happened because the PR world needs to become more sophisticated and transparent as it faces the challenges of measuring its communication to new communities (as opposed to audiences) via social media and online networks, not less sophisticated.

More than ever the most important thing to do is to to focus on making sure that PR metrics are tied to PR and business objectives at the outset of the campaign and to move focus on outcomes rather than outputs. This will take better education and understanding in the industry, something that Neil's work highlights, AMEC is working hard to provide, and an area that PR Week has a key role to play.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Bagnall

Achieving ROI in Social Media Campaigns Using Weak Links

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Lawrence Ampofo) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:03:00 +0100

A few days ago, I read an article citing a recently published study by the Harvard Business School which concluded that only ten per cent of Twitter’s six million subscribers are active posters. This led many commentators to muse that influence amongst typical Twitter users is extremely top heavy and concentrated in the hands of a few users. However, the influence of infrequent users, or weak links to use network analysis terminology, was dramatically brought to the fore in the widespread protests over the Iranian elections yesterday. The unique power of Twitter to provide real-time information from vast numbers of people including activists, demonstrators and journalists on the ground was astonishing. Reports indicated that certain hash tags, including #iranelection and #gr88 generated over 30 Tweets per minute at its apogee.

Watching the vast number of Tweets emerge on my TweetDeck yesterday, I could not help but think that perhaps the findings of the Harvard study needed to be questioned. The study, which polled over 300,000 users, concluded, amongst other things, that the top ten per cent of “prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets. On a typical social network, the top 10% of users accounted for 30% of all production”. Significant social events such as the G20 riots and the Mumbai terrorist attacks, when vast numbers of people used the service to both disseminate and receive information, surely demonstrated that there is no such thing as a “typical” Twitter user and, more importantly, that the categorisation of "influential" users on this social network platform needs to be reconsidered.

Having helped companies and organisations both create and implement their social media and online stakeholder engagement programmes for some years now, one of the first things I stress is the need to adapt to the constantly shifting social media landscape. Stakeholder communities change very quickly, as seen above, and companies that understand and adapt their online communications strategies accordingly more often than not reap benefits. Looking for some examples of that point, I was impressed by the social media strategies of the US Army and US Air Force, which have yielded demonstrable returns on investment such as increases in recruits and better relations with their stakeholders. When taking the time to understand the composition of their online stakeholders, both organisations devised social media strategies which focused on building relationships with various communities.

If Twitter and the Iranian election reminded me that online groups and communities are not static, but dynamic and ever-changing, these organisations highlighted that a bottom-up approach to PR using conversational media which focuses on adaptation and engagement, can yield success.

Review of day one of AMEC and the IPR's European Summit on PR Evaluation

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Jason Weekes) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:38:00 +0100

The opening day of AMEC’s first European Summit on PR Evaluation got off to a storming start today with some hotly debated issues around the licensing of press and online content. As more and more of us go to the web to source our news and the ever decreasing circles of shrinking readerships and declining advertising budgets lead to newspaper revenues falling, it seems that the newspapers and associated copyright bodies are keener than ever to target users of online news sources to top up their coffers.

The financial burden of this through the levying of fees for using content will of course put PCA’s (media monitoring companies), evaluation consultancies and ultimately our clients directly in the firing line. As the debate warmed up gasps were drawn as tables were banged and polarised opinions came to the fore. Who’d have thought it…?

Maren Heltsche, Martin Wettergren and particularly Katie Paine started the afternoon session with some great insights into the measurement of social media. Normalise it guys; don’t be afraid and be aware that it should always be analysed in the context of the wider media environment seemed to be consistent threads. Happily, this advice sits comfortably in line with the Metrica approach.

The debate about attributing influence (as well as the level of influence and how to quantify it) came up and is clearly going to be a hot topic for years to come. What I found interesting was how almost exclusively the case studies always seem to result in “… and then when it got into the traditional media, the issue really took off!”. If social media itself is not enough to change hearts and minds then does that make the analysis of it simply an early warning system to what might happen in the “real” media…? Probably not, but it does mean that although CGM is part of the communications mix, it does need alternative metrics in place to understand its effect. I’m sure the debate will be fascinating as we discuss what those metrics should be.

Later in the day Neil Wholey from Westminster City Council reminded us all that the measurement of communications is not all about media evaluation (let's not forget that AMEC itself changed it’s name from the Association of Media Evaluation Companies to the Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) . Increasingly it has to involve market research and the correlation of communications activities with business outcomes. Whether you are a public body or a commercial organisation proving that your communication strategy has had a positive effect on sales, clicks, behaviours or visitors seems to me to be the future of evaluation. As luck would have it the closing debate on Friday is asking just that question… what will our industry look like in years to come?

Let’s hope the answers not AVE..!

Do look out for tweets from the conference - the hash tag is #BMS09 and myself and my colleague Richard Bagnall will be tweeting regularly - find us here: Richard Bagnall and Jason Weekes.

The month that saw a pensioner scale a mountain, and cheese roll down a hill!

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Kate) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:05:00 +0100

We have just finished compiling Metrica’s latest Charity Radar benchmarking report for May 2009, and it makes for very interesting reading. As usual, various news stories shaped this month’s coverage from hugely popular events such as the Chelsea Flower Show to the more niche, but just as enjoyable, cheese rolling contest in Gloucestershire, where the St John Ambulance were on hand to aid any casualties.

Sir Ranulph Fiennes was the most mentioned public figure across coverage, boosted by news that he reached the summit of Mount Everest in aid of Marie Curie Cancer Care. This was made all the more remarkable by the fact that he was of pensionable age at 65 when he finally, in his own words, ‘plodded’ to the top. (Well done Sir Ranulph!)

A special mention should also go to Major Phil Packer, who completed the London Marathon and reached his target of raising £1 million for Help for Heroes. His next challenge will be to pull himself 1,800ft up the sheer rock face of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park in the US in June - the equivalent of 4,254 pull-ups. I’m sure he will be making another appearance in next month’s report!

In terms of companies, Marks & Spencer overtook Tesco to become the most featured company/organisation this month, boosted by their work with Oxfam and their Clothes Exchange campaign.

So, to the main result. Which charity featured most heavily across the 26,799 articles that we tracked this month? It was the RNLI, who were mentioned in almost 2,000 articles. As you may imagine, much of this was news of dramatic rescues as the summer months approach, but for May an additional driver of their press was the Duke of Kent visiting the RNLI in Cornwall in his role as president of the charity.

On a not so separate note, we were invited to take part in a pub quiz in aid of the RNLI last week. Alas, despite amassing many a random fact about the RNLI and their work, (did you know that RNLI lifeboats rescue an average of 21 people a day?) we managed to come joint second. A mighty effort. Although we didn’t know who invented the Atomic Bomb (J. Robert Oppenheimer if you were wondering), we do know that they raised almost £800 over the course of the night for a great cause – and the Metrica team had a great night too.

Should this blog post get me fired?

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Ria) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:03:00 +0100

How many colleagues do you count as friends on Facebook? I’m friends with quite a few of Metrica PR Measurement staffers – at least 15 at last count, including three Directors, one Senior Account Manager and two Managers. So, should I be watching my words when I update my status or post on other walls?

There are plenty of horror stories about employees losing their jobs following “inappropriate” activity on social networking sites, such as being caught using Facebook when supposedly ill or even for calling work “boring” in a status update. A recent survey conducted by Deloitte found that 60% of business executives believe they have the right to know how their employees portray themselves and their organisations on social networking sites. Unsurprisingly, employees disagree, with more than half of workers saying their social networking pages should not be their employer’s concern.

According to the Deloitte survey, one-third of employees don’t consider what their boss or customers might think before they post material online. I myself am one of the 33%, as it never occurs to me to vet what I say before I update my status. However, I do have the benefit of 1) liking my job and therefore being unlikely to complain about it in general, not just on Facebook or Twitter and 2) reserving my status updates for important stories, such as “Ria went to the UK premiere of Star Trek last night”. Yet, if I ever did want to complain about, is it not my right to do so on my personal Facebook page, no matter who I’m friends with?

Of course, if I ever did discuss my company negatively, it’s not just employers or clients who could be affected. If third parties can see “I hate Company X” in status updates, opinions can be affected, potential new business can be compromised and/or reputations can be damaged. For PR professionals, what kind of systems are put into place – is it the remit of the PR team or the HR team to monitor what staff are saying? If, indeed, this should be monitored in the first place?

Hazel Blears resigns from the cabinet

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Charlie) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:55:00 +0100

I found out about Hazel Blears' resignation this morning. It sparked a conversation in the Finance Team at Metrica about the power of the media to influence our opinion of the government. If we had any doubts about the influence of the media on politics, the level of coverage generated by the Telegraph scoop dispelled them.

The influential role of the media on public opinion was backed up by findings in the most recent Globescan report. This found that more people trust the media than their governments.

What’s remarkable about this whole scandal, as Peter Wilby points out in The Guardian, is that in recent weeks we have seen the return of the ‘old-fashioned scoop’ – details revealed in daily installments of print versions of The Telegraph have added weight to our mistrust of MPs and we now know it’s a feeling shared throughout the UK. A recent poll by The Times revealed that the share of Labour’s vote in the European elections could fall as low as 16%.

Do you think this is a direct result of the media furore over the expenses scandal?

What Google doesn't know, can't know and never will

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Richard Bagnall) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:27:00 +0100

Gary Goldhammer has written a great post on Social Media Today (flagged up to me today on Twitter by Lee Odden (thanks Lee - follow him if you're not already - @leeodden).

Gary poses some interesting thoughts on the debate around the decline in traditional media and the rise of Google and other online news aggregators. The thrust of the piece is that we can not rely on news aggregators and search engines alone to provide our news. We need journalists, editors and the media to uncover the content that we don't know about, AND the content that we don't know that we may even be interested in reading.

Think about that - how do you search Google News for those articles that you enjoy reading, on subjects that interest you but that you don't know exist?!

As Gary says:

"There are search engines that learn from us (Google) and search engines that teach us (Journalists). We need both, and neither should diminish at the expense of the other. But what if you don’t know what you want until you see it? It’s great to have search that understands me, but I want a search that teaches me. I want serendipity...Computers learn, people teach --and this is where journalism and the printed word can still lead.

"Those “intelligent agents” we all wanted? They are called reporter and editors. They are magazines, newspapers and, yes, books... These are the search agents that advance us and force us to confront what we didn’t think we needed or wanted to know. It doesn’t matter how well a search engine learns to learn if, in the end, it teaches us nothing."

It's a great and well written post so go and take a look at it for yourselves here.

Proving PR success in the digital media age

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (Richard Bagnall) — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:18:00 +0100

Congratulations to Lawrence Ampofo one of Metrica's account managers. Lawrence is featured in the May / June 2009 edition of 'Communications World', the magazine of the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators).

Writing the 'in my opinion' piece, Lawrence argues that no standard set of metrics can be applicable to PR measurement in the era of online and digital media. Lawrence provides some fascinating insights on relevant metrics for social media and networks in general and Twitter in particular.

Lawrence's thoughts are complimented with other must read articles of importance to all PR practitioners looking to prove their worth and justify their budgets. Merry Elrick looks at which metrics should be used and when in 'Measuring to demonstrate value in a tough economy'. Angela Sinickas points out that a lot of the PR measurement data that could be so helpful to communicators is in all likelihood already available within their organisation while Katie Paine in 'Goodbye eyeballs, hello engagement' argues that now is the time for the PR industry to abandon some of its older evaluation terms and to look to new tools and techniques for effective social media measurement.

These articles all written by some of the United States' leading PR measurement experts do require you to subscribe and log-in at the IABC's website. That said, the IABC has kindly allowed Metrica to make Lawrence's article available for download to Measurement Matters' readers. DOWNLOAD 'Proving PR success in the digital media' as a pdf file here.

Review of PR ROI techniques: Part 1

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (PaulH) — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:05:00 +0100

This is part one of a six part series about measuring the return on investment of public relations.

As the recession has really taken a stranglehold over the last eight months or so, there has naturally been a renewed interest in public relations' return on investment. The incentives for the PR industry are clear, as money has drained away from advertising at an alarming rate, there is a real opportunity to channel some of that budget towards forms of marketing that are more cost effective. For example direct marketing did very well out of the last recession because it could demonstrate its effectiveness both in terms of targeting and in its response rates. But there is the rub, many of us anecdotally feel that PR is cost effective but how do you prove it.

One of the problems with PR ROI is its very definition. At its most basic level ROI is a ratio between the profit generated from an investment and the cost of the investment itself.

As venerable London Business School Fellow Tim Ambler has demonstrated in his paper ‘ROI is dead, now bury it!’ this basic bit of maths leads to some big problems. According to this definition the best way to maximise ROI is to spend no money since anything divided by zero is infinite. It would therefore follow that we immediately cut all marketing budgets back to nothing, stand back and watch as the economy pulls sharply out of recession and grows at a phenomenal rate…or maybe not.

So maybe we should look to a more general definition of ROI as what to I get for the money that I invest. That’s the easy bit, but how do we work out what the ‘R’ actually is.

Over the next five posts we will look at some of the methods that are used to calculate PR return on investment.

Next: Advertising Value Equivalents

Part 2: Advertising Value Equivalents

Part 3: Cost of Reach

Part 4: Market Research

Part 5: Correlation with Business Outcomes

Part 6: Econometrics

The posts have been published in reverse order, contrary to blog protocol, so that they read as a consecutive series of articles as you scroll down the page

Review of PR ROI techniques: Part 2

blog.nospam@nospam.metrica.net (PaulH) — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:03:00 +0100

This is part two of a six part series about measuring the return on investment of public relations.

Advertising Value Equivalents

The method of placing a value of editorial coverage based on what it would have cost if it were advertising is and old and increasingly discredited one. However it remains the most popular method of demonstrating ROI. A feature in last week’s PR Week demonstrated its continued widespread use while Metrica’s soon to be released ‘PR Measurement, Research and Planning in the UK’ research shows that the percentage of PR professionals who use AVEs has increased from 28% to 49% over the last decade.

The appeal of AVEs is that they are relatively easy to work out and they give a number with a pound sign in front of it. The problem is that it is not showing any form of return, it is merely showing how much advertising would have cost if were in the same place (which it wouldn’t be) at rate-card value (which it wouldn’t be).

The rise of online content makes life difficult because online advertising works in a very different way from print advertising. In print the same ads appear in the same place in every copy of the newpaper or magazine. Ad-servers mean that this is very much not the case for online sites. As a good example, try refreshing The Sun’s homepage a number of times and see that different adverts are displayed while the content remains the same.

AVEs are also causing problems as the advertising industry is hit. Trying to place a value based on something that is in sharp decline is probably not a good idea. Plunging ad rates are leading to much lower AVE figures even though the quality of coverage may be just as good. We recently had a client who, for historical reasons, used AVEs to report to their board. Unfortunately their AVE totals fell by over 50% despite their volume of coverage more that trebling over the same time period.

The following four posts will show some credible alternatives to AVEs as a way of demonstrating the ROI of PR.

Next: Part 3 – Cost of Reach

Previous: Part 1 - Introduction