I was delighted to see that the COI has recently announced the results of its initiative to standardise PR evaluation metrics.

Metrica worked closely with the COI on the plans and has long endorsed moving away from simple quantitative measures towards analysing the role that PR plays in a wider context.  For that reason it was pleasing to see four elements in particular…

Firstly, establishing the programme without the recommendation of Advertising Value Equivalence should be seen as a giant step forward. The COI report describes AVE as a flawed metric and states that it will not be including AVE in the core set of mandatory metrics.

In putting his hands up to occasionally having used AVE, Adrian Cadwallader, Deputy Head of Marketing at the Department for Children, Schools and Families highlights that he was troubled by the appropriateness of using one marketing technique to evaluate another and embraces the new cost per impact (CPI) metric.

As a way of showing comparative value across communications disciplines this is a measure Metrica has been providing to clients for a long time.

It was also pleasing that Adrian pointed out the need to tailor the metrics according to the campaign. This supports the conclusion that the COI has drawn by not creating a proprietary “scoring system” or magic bullet approach. For as long as I’ve worked in the industry the goal of having one “score” to measure the effectiveness of PR has been discussed and the debate rages on. I don’t think “scores” will ever be the answer. I wont get into that now but we’ve blogged about it a few times – here for example.

Neil Martinson, Director News and PR at COI points out that establishing a consistent approach to the way metrics are calculated will make it easier to compare results across other marketing disciplines. The endorsement of cross discipline measurement was perhaps the most heartening conclusion of all. Feeding into holistic evaluation programmes and econometric models will ultimately raise the bar for everyone. 

Metrica has a history of integrating it’s analysis into econometric models; as  Carolan Davidge, of Cancer Research UK points out when discussing the work Metrica did for the Race for Life campaign, it’s perfect for demonstrating outcomes and for supporting those who feel their PR budget is under threat.

Finally it was great to see that the analysis will focus on Reach to audience. Far too often we see competitors clients come to us frustrated by generic media evaluation that pays no heed to the one element that should be central to all campaigns – the audience. There’s no point pitching me your latest beefburger – I’m veggie – and all the messaging in the world won’t make me buy it. Understanding how well you are communicating with those that matter is central so hats off to the COI for documenting that too.

If you are looking at your evaluation programme and think the standardised metrics that the COI has rolled out might be right for you feel free to get in touch – we’re always happy to help.

In the mean time, I’m off for some Tofu and lentils… yum!

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.