Long used as a standardised global currency, AVE is based on the idea that every piece of PR coverage generated is equivalent to the value of that space as an advertising investment multiplied by three. The rationale for this increase is that editorial or earned media is three times more credible than paid.
Inadequacy of AVE
It seems, however, the AVE is past its sell-by date. An increasing number of PR professionals have criticised the inadequacy of the measure – culminating in this week’s news that Ogilvy PR Worldwide, inspired by its Australian division, is going to drop AVE as a measurement gold standard.
Ogilvy isn’t alone with wanting to move away from AVE. But the problem with all research currencies is not ditching them, it’s replacing them. Even if you can come up with a better model, getting your entire stakeholder circle to come on board a new measurement system is tough. Some will prefer to stick with what clients know. Others will have a different view about which are relevant variables and which are not. The result? Multiple currencies.
Sceptical
This problem is nicely illustrated by International Communications Consultancy Organisation (ICCO) research which shows that AVEs continue to be used, even when PR professionals are sceptical of their worth. According to ICCO’s Q3 Trends Barometer “39% of respondents rejected AVEs as a legitimate approach to measurement of PR campaigns, but 13% endorsed them. The remaining 48% believe they are “sometimes” valid, depending on the nature of the campaign. Despite the lack of endorsement of AVEs by consultants, more than half included them when asked which evaluation metrics they use for reporting campaign results to clients.”
Variety of methods
ICCO goes on to provide the following insight into how PR execs evaluate: “The methods most used by respondents are ‘press clippings – number of mentions’ (75%) and ‘key performance indicator or other method defined by the client’ (64%). These are followed by ‘number of unique visitors (digital)’ and ‘AVE's’ (56% and 55% respectively) as well as ‘benchmarking surveys – pre and post campaign’ (48%). Less than half (43%) measure the ROI of PR campaigns in monetary terms, while nearly a third (30%) rely at times on purely subjective evaluation or ‘gut feel’. A further 15% create other means of evaluation, including: opinion or perception audits, number of new business leads for clients and content analysis of media coverage.”
Who dictates evaluation?
That’s quite a varied list. But note a further tier of complexity which is that: “The measurement criteria applied to a given campaign are usually discussed and agreed in advance between client and consultant… respondents are split almost evenly as to whether it is the PR consultancy or the client who dictates evaluation.” In other words, the PR industry doesn’t just have to convert its own flock – but also the brand community.
Seven principles
To its credit, the industry has been grappling with the problem of AVEs for some time. Last year, at an industry summit in Barcelona, organised by trade bodies AMEC and IPR, it came up with the following seven principles around which it wants to build a new kind of measurement model:
- Importance of Goal Setting and Measurement
- Measuring the Effect on Outcomes is Preferred to Measuring Outputs
- Effect on Business Results Can and Should Be Measured Where Possible
- Media Measurement Requires Quantity and Quality
- AVEs are not the Value of Public Relations
- Social Media Can and Should be Measured
- Transparency and Replicability are Paramount to Sound Measurement
Coming forward a year to their latest summit in Lisbon, AMEC/IPR put some meat on the bones by fleshing out a model called Valid Metrics. This is quite a lengthy document which can be viewed in full at this address: http://ameceuropeansummit.org
Charts, campaigns and consumer behaviour
Valid Metrics was developed by an AMEC working party. It is based around a series of charts in which various forms of PR activation are evaluated against specified criteria with their resulting impact on objectives logged. Different charts relate to different types of campaigns, such as product marketing, reputation building, investor relations, issues advocacy, crisis management, employee engagement and social/community engagement. Significantly, the charts don’t just measure media, but also attempt to explore the impact of a campaign on sales or consumer behaviour. As a bonus, the results are tabulated in a way that is easy to explain to clients.
Intricacy and more science
An initial reaction to the intricacy of Valid Metrics template might be to run a mile. But it is a serious attempt to deal with the fact that AVEs are not telling clients what they need to know. This is particularly true now so much PR messaging is occurring in the context of social and digital media.
If there’s an observation worth making, it’s that the industry is attempting to get more science into its approach. Other themes at Lisbon included using search as a form of evaluation, better use of control groups and trying to identify tangible returns – in terms of PR's contribution to sales/revenue/share price/cost savings. In tough times, PR agencies would do themselves a big favour if they could demonstrate this kind of impact.