Burson-Marsteller boss: Clients must be encouraged to move away from equivalency as a PR measure
Australian public relations agencies are ahead of some of their global counterparts when it comes to PR measurement but agencies must continue to educate clients on the need to move on from the traditional advertising value equivalency (AVE) model, Burson-Marsteller CEO Christine Jones told an audience in Sydney.
Speaking at today’s CommsCon conference on the topic of PR measurement, Jones disputed the notion that Australia is behind the rest of the world and needs to catch up.
“I think Australian thinking and capability is way ahead,” she said.
“We should be proud of the quality of our work and the way we measure it. We can only take our clients on a journey so far, if that’s the measurement they want (AVEs), we give it.”
Managing director of Bang PR Annalise Brown was in agreement, saying: “Our industry is further ahead then some of our global counterparts.
“I know when we’re talking to some of the industry they are saying usually they have to use AVEs because they’re part of a global account group and they’re being measured as something that’s either regionally or globally led and in fact local clients are more interested in a more robust measurement program.”
On a new system she said: “There is no one silver bullet.”
Advertising value equivalency compares editorial coverage to what the same space would cost if it were a paid for ad, and is often criticised for being subjective or difficult to accurately assess.
“We suggest its a combination of qualitative and quantitative measurements but it’s also about clients business needs, what are their business needs and what are the solutions we can provide,” said Brown.
On continuing to move forward with measurement Brown’s advice was simple – talk about it upfront before even the creative process begins.
“With all the work we’re doing both overseas and locally and this being such a hot topic and the focus of our industry we’re definitely moving forward.
“There’s a couple of things we need to do as an industry and one is, have some difficult conversations up front. And number two is stop trying, and convince our clients to stop trying to separate the PR affect from the overall affect of the campaigns we work on.
“It’s incredibly rare that we work in isolation,” she added.
Miranda Ward
We all know that PR needs a new measurement model.
The question is: what is it?
No one is answering the question: How do you attribute business value to PR results?
User ID not verified.
Interesting to hear AVEs still used by ‘big’ agencies, when the Barcelona Principles formed out of the Global Alliance, are not accepted.
The issue is convincing the c-suite of its importance, in order to obtain greater PR budgets in the future. Its another one of those arguments that has been hanging around for many years. We need to stop talking about it and start leading it.
Found PRIA’s model quite useful, particularly on a low budget.
http://www.pria.com.au/eventsa.....evaluation
User ID not verified.
I simply cannot believe that advertising equivalence, in any guise, is still being discussed by PR companies and their clients. Please go read the Barcelona Declaration http://bit.ly/1hQpzLq and enter the 21st PR century. AVE was dead, certainly no longer credible, at least 20 years ago.
User ID not verified.
For those looking to explain to clients or colleagues why we shouldn’t use AVEs, here’s an article I wrote that was recently featured on Ragan.com detailing 16 reasons to stop using them: http://www.ragan.com/Main/Arti.....49335.aspx
And for those looking for a better way to measure PR, here is a link to AMEC’s integrated measurement framework, including a user guide, case studies and sample metrics. http://www.bit.ly/smmframework
AMEC is the International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communications and was one of the key players behind the Barcelona Principles. The framework has been adopted and endorsed by the UK Government, Public Relations Consultants Association and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.
User ID not verified.
Good links Richard, thank you.
User ID not verified.
No one using AVEs can say that their thinking is “way ahead” of anything other than perhaps the PR equivalent of a horse and buggy. Not only have do Australian firms like Burson use traditional AVEs, I’ve also heard them makeup new AVE equivalents for social media that are even less accurate http://painepublishing.com/mea.....ent-tools/
The alternative to AVE is to define a PR quality index based on what drives the customer to purchase your product or do change the behavior you want them to change. I’ve done that dozens of times, for many organizations large and small. It’s not that hard, it just requires commitment and bit of conversation with leadership. I have yet to meet a senior leader in a client organization who really wants to be fed false data, http://painepublishing.com/mea.....d-metrics/
Once you explain the falisies behind AVE, they are happy to switch to a more meaningful metric. Many organizations like GM, McDonalds,Southwest Airliines, and others have been able to move beyond AVEs. For an agency with the stature of Burson to cower behind the excuse that “clients demand it” shows a lack of strength and commitement to excellence. If the clients demanded heroin and hookers, would they also serve them up?
User ID not verified.