7/10/2008 9:49:40 AM

Nice point Claire. Strikes me that chasing every article that mentions your organisation in the modern media age is as futile and pointless as the arms race in the old cold war. No winnners, no benefit, and totally unaffordable... But then of course it's in the press cuttings agencies' interests to try to convince PR people otherwise. As budgets get squeezed, the quality / quantity and the whole 'so what' debate will get more and more important.

Richard

7/10/2008 11:13:56 AM

"It's the educating of stakeholders that is the difficulty here. More often than not, despite its value, the management of cuttings is ultimately left to junior members of the team. For these individuals, the buzz of seeing a press release put out by them, appearing in hundreds of regional titles (despite the fact that their target audience are Patagonian goat herders, who only read trade titles) is an enormous motivator. Volume is a measure they can understand. AVE is a measure they understand.

The middle to senior members of the PR team know only too well that cuttings volumes, AVE and OTS are a red herring, but I also think that there is some deliberate obfuscation going on, with PRO's using the CEO's lack of PR knowledge to their advantage, hiding behind old fashioned KPIs that are easier to fudge than hardcore audience reach numbers, or simply for an easy life."

Bob

7/10/2008 2:16:24 PM

Its funny how things turn full circle. I remember one of the first presentations we did almost 15 years ago (back in the days of acetate sheets!). We used the metaphor of the rifle vs the blunderbuss to show how important it is to target the right messages at the right audiences - that quality is as important, if not more important to measure than quantity. As the potential for online sourcing increases exponentially, I think Richard's analogy is an appropriate one. It's now more like the smart missile vs the nuclear bomb!

Paul

7/10/2008 3:17:28 PM

The fascinating thing is how the C-level folks will push our marketing cousins to connect the dots: "Well, that's great that we got a millard of impressions and opportunities to see. So what?"

They will claim credit for increased sales on their ad spend, but what if the impressions and OTS increase, and the ad spend increases, but sales do not?

Thus lies the peril of AVE for PR work -- in most cases, PR and ads are simply not equivalent, though depending on the topic, we can be as influential in the sales experience as advertising.

As we consider paths forward, it really should be more important to be influential in an observable and measurable way. Social Media certainly can offer customer insight, and the impact of editorial content can be measured in social science research.

That said, there is evidence that volume can matter -- but only if it's in the right outlet, contains the right messages, and leads to measurable result.
(my comments are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)

Sean Williams

7/11/2008 3:46:38 PM

Claire - THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS! The quantity versus quality debate is something I deal with on a daily basis. We've moved some of our clients to the quality model as they receive far too much coverage to "care" about everything. However, there are still many who feel like they need to see every single clip. I'm not sure why because, as you note, its not very cost or time efficient. Hopefully this trend continues!

Chuck Hemann

8/4/2008 3:57:43 PM

I agree with your post and all the comments here thus far. Addressing this quantity/quality issue in my mind hinges on two things. The first, is selling through to the internal stakeholders that the overall numbers are less important than achieving success with the influentials in your space. I know the "influencer" thing has become a bit of a cliche, but no marketing/pr person worth their salt operates without a clear knowledge of who really drives perception in their industry. The second element is developing success metrics for breaking through with those influencers. Maintaining metrics for results with a more limited target set can be a nice solution to the quality/quantity balance.

Chris Ross