Resources
PR industry calls for marketing to reject unethical measurement
Marketing executives who evaluate publicity using the globally condemned advertising value equivalency (AVE) method need education and guidance, according to the Public Relations Institute of Australia.
"PRIA has received an increased number of notices about clients and managers asking for AVE calculations, or suppliers offering to provide AVE numbers," Robert Masters, National president PRIA said.
"A policy condemning AVEs was announced in 1999 by the PRIA. This has been backed up by leading communication institutes and academic research centres in Europe and North America. A new analysis of the calculation and international analysis of the process has been compiled by Jim Macnamara and posted on the PRIA website." (www.pria.com.au)
The PRIA national board is launching an education campaign working with media monitoring organisations, marketing consultancies and corporate affairs managers to help people use valid, reliable and internationally acceptable editorial evaluation systems. These include:
- Share of voice
- Opportunities to See (reach)
- Target to Story ratio
- Message carriage
- Prominence
- Focus
- Tonal analysis
- Behaviour, awareness and attitudinal analysis
AVEs are generally calculated by multiplying the space taken with editorial coverage by the publication's advertising rate, irrespective of the tone, quality or number of competing organisations being discussed in the editorial.
In addition, some AVEs have use a 'credibility multiplier' to the raw advertising space cost of three to 10 times. The leading PR research institute in the world, the Institute for Public Relations in the US, describes use of AVE multipliers as "unethical", "dishonest" and "not at all supported by the research literature".
"Strong editorial coverage can be much more valuable and effective than advertising, but it can also have a large detrimental effect on corporate reputation and marketing programs," Mr. Masters said. “The appearance and size of editorial measured by advertising rates bears no relationship to the value of the article. It could generate $1 million in sales, or it could completely stop a development project.
"No advertising agency gets measured on how much space they buy, so why would people measure PR based on editorial space generated? At the very least, organisations need to know who read the coverage - was it the target audience? Of course, the best measure is outcome - change of perception or desired behavior."
Mr. Masters said the second argument presented to support AVEs, is that clients, or mangement insist on using them and pressure PR practitioners to provide them.
"It is true that some organisations insist on AVE calculations. If this is the case, we recommend people to start the education process," he said.
If requests are made for such measures, Mr. Masters said a statement of facts needed to be provided using the following responses:
- Refuse to use a multiplier - "such action is misleading"
- Use the term "advertising space rate" - avoid the word "value" or "equivalent"
- Provide alternative measurement options - reach, target hits, etc
- Clearly define the issue using a description and disclaimer such as:
- "If the space gained as editorial was purchased as advertising, it would have cost $X".
"Advertising and editorial media coverage are fundamentally different in content, placement, presentation and reader response." Researchers recommend other measures of the effectiveness and impact of editorial media coverage, including audience/market reach, share of voice, qualitative analysis of messages communicated and, ultimately, audience effects, such as recall, awareness and attitudes.
"This advertising space rate calculation has been provided in response to a direct request, but no assertion is made that the measurement is valid."
Mr. Masters said that recent PR industry research showed that already less than 30% of firms use any AVE calculation. The PRIA is seeking to speed up the eradication of AVEs and see all companies and government departments use valid measurement systems.
"Over time, marketing clients will become more comfortable with other measures and join the academics, researchers and industry leaders who condemn AVEs as misleading and useless mathematical nonsense," said Mr. Masters.
Notes:
The Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) issued a Position Paper in 1999 on research and evaluation which stated:
- "The PRIA does not recognise Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs) of editorial media coverage as a reliable or valid evaluation methodology. Editorial and advertising cannot be directly compared."
The Advertising Federation of Australia (AFA) issued a policy on AVEs in 2001 stating:
- "The AFA does not support the practice of using Advertising Value Equivalents as a measurement of editorial publicity. Well targeted, creative and strategically focused advertising is inherently different to the editorial gained from public relations activities. Both forms of communication have their distinct benefits and cannot be benchmarked against each other ..."
The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) has circulated a policy statement to its members stating in part:
- "AANA notes that other professional PR organisations including the Institute of Public Relations in the UK and leading PR academics in the US and UK have condemned the practice as "of questionable validity" and "flawed". AANA concurs with these views and believes this matter should be brought to the attention of members in the interests of Best Practice and to inform our members of more reliable and credible methods for evaluating PR."
Monday, 22 August 2005