Don't get in a twist with your PR measurement

PR measurement. A subject guaranteed to get the debate juices flowing. Although there are dozens of areas I could discuss, I think it would only be right to focus on the one metric that has resurfaced in the past week.

Advertising Value Equivalent (AVE) seems to be drawing its last breath as a PR measurement tool. Although up to a year ago 37% of PR agency’s surveyed by the PRCA admitted to still using AVEs, those that stand by it must be running out of reasons why.

AVE is definitely not without its haters, as my friend Pritesh Patel covers in his blog. I agree with Pritesh when he says that AVE doesn’t communicate a benefit to a business, mainly because the AVE formula is based on flawed logic – media rates change (particularly when you can pick up trade adverts in this media climate for £5 and a box of Jaffa Cakes – OK, not entirely accurate, but you know what I mean), different agencies use different multiples (sometimes not entirely truthfully) and the measurement is based on comparing PR coverage to advertising, which we should have stopped doing a long time ago.

But to come at this from a different angle, I can see why AVE has been and is still used. Not one to gloss over this, I still use it, but in a very specific and deliberate way (and one will be changing). In my opinion AVE measures one thing, PR output. It tells you nothing about the sentiment of your coverage, nor if any of your key messages were included, which in B2B and trade PR particularly is vital. In this respect it’s no different to measuring column inches (although I’d suggest editorial ‘pages’, column inch figures look inconsequential – I can’t remember the last time I thought of media space in inches). Both measure output without any consideration for the quality of the coverage.

This is where you need a holistic approach to your PR measurement that utilises a number of metrics to measure both volume and quality. If you’re only looking at one of those elements, then I’d suggest you’re not seeing the full picture. Although the PR industry has become much more sophisticated at measuring its activity in recent years, it still generally boils down to how much coverage you generate and how good / bad it is, with varying levels of detail depending on how deep you dig, and there are plenty of third party applications and software to help you do this…for a fee, obviously (which my clients have tended to prefer to spend on their activity, rather than a media monitoring service).

The PRCA survey I mentioned above stated that ‘only 2% (of the 37%) used the evaluation model in isolation’. This is absolutely the way to go. Let’s be honest, AVE is a rubbish metric, but if part of your evaluation is to measure the volume of coverage then AVE will do just fine if that’s what you’ve been using previously – it means you can continue to benchmark your coverage volumes whilst you make the decision regarding whether to change metrics. As long as you support your output evaluation with more in-depth analysis (mentions in your tiered media for example) then you’ll still get a clear picture of what quantity of coverage you’re getting. However, this shouldn’t take up more than about 20% of your evaluation time – quantity isn’t really that hard to measure.

What about the remaining 80%? Well, I’d use that to focus on the quality aspect of your PR coverage. Track your key message mentions, build up an understanding of what types of coverage include them (colour separations can be tightly edited for example) and then analyse what the uptake is across your PR coverage. I use a simple, aggregated scoring system that enables me to work out key message references as a percentage against PR coverage volume. I can then plot the figures in a graph and chart key message performance throughout the year (I can tell already that this is sounding much more impressive than a lowly AVE figure, haha).

So there we go. Yes, AVE should be a dead metric, but the focus should be on a combined effort to measure your PR activity. If you’re still using AVE in isolation, then you should probably start learning Dodo.

I’d seen a brief mention of colour separations / editorial charges / product panels (whatever name they go by at the moment – those paid for spaces, usually 100 words and an image for £100) followed by the usual tirade of moans on Twitter a few weeks ago and thought I’d offer my thoughts on the subject. First of all, I’ll make it clear that personally, I don’t like colour separations. The concept of paying for editorial space quite frankly goes against everything I believe PR to be in terms of generating coverage. And no, I don’t believe that achieving colour separation coverage is ‘PR’ either, but at the end of the day supplying material to the press is part of it and if colour separations have to be the end result, then hey ho.

The majority of my clients are building product and materials manufacturers. Naturally, they want to promote their products and the projects they are involved in. I think that’s fair enough, so what’s the problem? Well, this is obviously a bit tricky when you speak to editors and journalists who say “we don’t cover products, but you can book a product panel for £100″. And colour separations aren’t just for the lower end of the market either. Flick through any of the magazines which charge colour separations and you’ll see some of the biggest brand names and manufacturers in the industry, not just two blokes working out of a shed.

There are  ways around this, photo captions etc but they don’t tell the full story, so companies have to pay colour separation charges to see their stories covered with photography (and what’s the point of trying to generate coverage for a product if you can’t see it?). Now I’m not slating the media for this, dwindling ad revenues, dog-eat-dog competition and budget-shifting have all made magazines more commercially aware (maybe than some would care to admit) so they need to source the cash from somewhere and let’s face it, there’s not a shortage of companies wanting coverage. If you don’t pay for that space out of principle, someone else will. Obviously it would be an ideal world if material could be supplied to journalists who then make the call about what goes into the magazine based on what is relevant and interesting to the readership. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world.

Colour separations are here, and they’re staying put (at least for the time being).

My advice if you’re a building product manufacturer or materials supplier who wants to generate coverage and promote your wares in the market is figure out which media who do charge for colour separations are going to be the best ones to spend your money with – an easier option is to get an experienced agency or PR person who knows the media to handle this for you. I’m not saying you need to like paying colour separation charges, just live with them for a little while. Social media and digital content may take over in the future, but until this becomes the majority rather than the minority, you’re going to have to go with it.

Another option is to secure feature articles and comment pieces on industry trends and drivers (legislation is a good one as there’s no shortage of that in construction) but there are some fundamentals to remember here. 1. Be interesting. 2. Don’t expect it to be an 800 word opportunity for you to go on the hard sell. 3. These opportunities are less frequent than ‘colour sep’d’ project stories. 4. Build a relationship with the media so you can take advantage of these opportunities (see my earlier post on the importance of media visits).

The media that serves the construction industry is impressively diverse. From the main weekly publications such as Construction News, New Civil Engineer and Building – who have a lovely new website (plus the likes of AJ and BD) to the ‘monthlies’ (too many to mention here I think). For an industry with so many areas of niche interest there needs to be a diverse media that provides for that interest. Many of the magazines don’t charge a subscription (simply because people won’t pay it, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to read it or have access to the content), so how else do they make their business model work? In a way, colour separations enable that great bastion of media markets to be achieved, variety. Yes, they also encourage crap titles, but if you can’t tell the difference between a good and bad publication, find someone who does. Without the income publications would close, guaranteed. And whilst we might be left with the ‘better’ magazines, it doesn’t mean we’ll have access to better content.

Fair play if you think that colour separations only ransack budgets, to some extent I agree. But if you had a product to promote and a limited way of being able to do it, would you do any different?

Not the best approach

Advertising and editorial. The link (or relationship, as some would say) between these two communication channels in construction has been debated on  numerous occasions. Should advertising spend have a direct impact on editorial coverage? Should editorial ‘grease the wheels’ for companies to then spend on advertising? Should advertising sales teams have a say on which companies, or products, should be covered in a magazine? All questions that I’ve either been asked directly, or heard as part of the ongoing debate.

Let me give you an insight into a recent phone call I took from a somewhat overzealous advertising sales contact (who I’d never met) from a monthly sector magazine that I have a good deal of respect for and know the editorial team very well. This is a genuine conversation, although I don’t feel it’s appropriate to ‘name and shame’…yet.

Sales contact: “Hi there Neil, just wondered when you’re client X is planning on advertising with us. As you can see they’ve received quite a lot of editorial coverage recently.”

Me: “Hi. Sorry, I usually speak to X regarding my client’s advertising and I don’t think we’ve spoken bef…”

Sales contact: Interrupts…”yes I know, I handle the X region and wanted to know when you’re going to book some advertising with us on behalf of your client.”

Me: “Well, I appreciate the call, but I don’t see what the relevance is of the client being covered editorially. I work with X and the team to submit stories of interest to the publication. If they decide to cover my client then that’s an editorial decision I’m sure and not one based on advertising spend.”

Sales contact: “That may be the case, but we all know what condition the market is in and we need to see some support from your client otherwise I’ll see that X and the team restrict the number of opportunities your client has in the magazine.”

Me: Surprised…”Hang on, are you saying that my client won’t be covered if they don’t spend on advertising with you?”

Sales contact: “Well, I’ve been doing this for 15 years and this is the way I choose to do business. We’ve done you a favour by covering the client so we should see some advertising support.”

Me: “With all due respect, it’s not the way I handle my clients’ accounts. Editorial coverage is a decision made by X and the team and I have every confidence that they do this under no pressure from advertising. If you’re telling me otherwise then I obviously need to have a conversation with the editor.”

Sales contact: “Do that. But understand that a lack of support from an advertising point of view will restrict your client’s editorial opportunities in the magazine.”

Me: “I think we had better end this conversation. To be honest I’m amazed you feel you can speak for your editorial team.”

Sales contact: “OK mate, I’ll talk to you again soon.” – I was stunned at this sudden tone of friendliness.

The discussion lasted no longer than 2-3 minutes but gave me a great insight into the unfortunately unprofessional side of the trade media. After taking a moment I called the editor and recounted the conversation. To their, and the magazine’s credit, I was given a direct and blunt response that this is not how editorial is managed and soon after the Advertising Sales Manager (who I knew) called me to say that he would be dealing with me directly and could he make an appointment to come and see me for a chat and a coffee.

Liz Male has blogged before about the ‘the curious case of the free editorial‘, but this was something different. Editorial integrity of a publication was being undermined by the very person supposedly selling the commercial opportunities within the magazine. As of yet, it’s the first and only time I’ve come across such an unprofessional approach to securing advertising.

My suggestion if you ever have the same conversation is do as I did and speak to the editorial team. I’m sure they’ll give short-shrift to the words of their ‘colleague’. And if they don’t, then I’d really consider whether you want your business (or your clients) supporting them in the first place.

What stood out for me during the meetings was the immense amounts of knowledge that businesses hold about their own market and how much of that can be shared with journalists and the media. Obviously not all editor meetings are the same, but I’ve also tended to go for the relaxed and informal approach where people can sit and chat – I trust the client not to drop a clanger ‘a la’ Gerald Ratner and they trust me to brief them in advance and allow the conversation to flow (whilst ensuring we cover their key points, but shhh, that bit’s a secret, haha). 

I’ve done many of these visits now and quite a few without clients. Establishing and maintaining relationships with the media are some of the most basic skills that a PR can possess, but it’s surprising that some don’t make the effort or the time. Speaking to some of my friendly journalism contacts, it seems that only those PRs who genuinely make an effort are remembered and contacted on behalf of their clients – I’ll reference Liz Male here as a great example and someone I take inspiration from. Personally, I couldn’t do my job this way. Ongoing contact with the media, even when there’s nothing to ‘sell in’ about your clients is vital for me (and the company I work for, probably) and I’m glad that I can call some of the journalists I’ve met through work my friends. 

Yes, there are limits on people’s time. Yes, some journalists can be difficult, but they’re no more guilty than some PRs who push their luck (Charles Arthur of the Guardian has written a few blogs on this). I tend to think that people appreciate personal contact every once in a while, particularly when you can educate them on something they didn’t know that’s of interest (takes me back to my point about my client discussing the legislation). None of my relationships with journalists have ever gotten worse after we’ve met, quite the opposite in fact. 

So if you work in PR (particularly in a specific trade or market, like me), then get out and meet your journalists. There are plenty of opportunities and the best editors welcome the contact, especially if you can hook them up with an interesting story or client. Go for it, if you handle it properly, it could be one of the best moves you make. 

Source: Flickr - nick.garrod

Thanks for taking the time to check out my blog, I hope you find it useful. If not, let me know why and hopefully we can meet somewhere in the middle…

Having already started one blog over a year ago that didn’t really get off the ground, I’m going to do my best to stick with this, so any feedback, suggestions or help would be hugely appreciated.

Cheers!

Neil