Richard posted yesterday from the Institute for Public Relations Summit on Measurement. He mentioned a session ran by Angela Jeffrey of VMS who was discussing a potential new metric called ‘Media Cost Weighting’ or MCWs. I thought it was worth looking into this subject in a bit more detail…
Much of the ‘meat’ behind the concept comes from a piece of research published by Angela, Bruce Jeffries-Fox and Brad Rawlins (the latter from Brigham Young University). The research is available hidden away here on page 285 of the 800 page accompanying document to the IPR Research conference last March.
The research team looked at correlations between business ‘outcomes’ and three ‘output’ metrics (clip count, impressions and AVE). This was conducted across three different case studies: parental preference for Northeastern colleges, sales leads for Industrial Power Conditioners and ‘top-of-mind’ survey results for Wisconsin Hospital.
In all three examples, impressions produced a higher correlation with the business outcome than clipping counts and AVEs produced a higher correlation still. The implication is that AVEs are a better indicator of outcomes in these examples than impressions or cutting volumes. The correlation scores for AVEs were 12.4% higher than impressions and 25.6% higher than clipping counts. However, I feel that caution should be applied when interpreting these results since all three examples had very low sample sizes (with just five, three and six data points respectively).
Having said this, there may well be something in these findings. A few explanations of the stronger performance for AVEs are suggested:
1) AVEs take into account the size of the audience – the greater the numbers, the higher the price in general
2) More believable sources (eg broadsheets vs tabloids) command higher price
3) Media that enjoy wealthier audiences who are more likely to buy products have higher rate
4) The price can also take into account prominence within the media (eg front page)
5) Market rates dictate these prices and therefore create an objective base for analysis, compared with the proliferation of subjective, artificial and proprietary media weighting scores in the industry
6) AVEs also take into account the size of the article or length in the case of broadcast unlike impressions.
Furthermore the issue of tone of coverage can also be handled. Rather than showing a total AVE or ignoring negative coverage, it is suggested that a ‘net’ AVE is used where negative coverage is subtracted from favourable coverage.
The research notes that while AVEs can be an effective metric when used as a benchmark or when linking PR outputs to outtakes and outcomes, it is widely misused as an ROI measure by placing a value on the editorial:
“the old practice of wracking up a big AVE dollar score and claiming it as a true campaign outcome has appropriately been branded PR witchcraft”
Because of this the authors are promoting the metric to be renamed as a “Media Cost Weighting”.
My worry with all of this is that it is providing evidence that will arguably lead to more not less abuse of AVEs. What is laudable about the research is that it is promoting the investigation of links between media coverage and whether this is affecting people’s attitudes and behaviours. While it should be commended, unfortunately this type of work is the exception rather than the rule. It is likely that most PR practitioners will use AVEs or MCWs or whatever they are going to be called as a pure volume measure. The temptation will also be there to continue to put that dollar sign in front of the number and send it off to the board, particularly as pressure mounts to prove your worth in the face of potential cuts.
In many ways the PR industry has become a sophisticated beast. As advertising budgets start to be pulled back there is a real opportunity for the industry to show how it can cost-effectively target increasingly fragmented audiences, and ultimately how it delivers to the bottom line. There are many analysis techniques that already exist that do just this (including some mentioned in this research). It therefore seems somewhat ironic that the industry may well be about to return to the discredited AVE instead.
It appears we are regressing to what PR people are often derided for – when something doesn’t work you rebrand it!
Subscribe
Subscribe by Email