Here we go again. The old hoary topic of AVE’s (advertising value equivalents) as a way of measuring the value of editorial media coverage seems to be getting another airing within the Australian PR industry. Surely there are not many PR Manager’s around who subscribe to this approach!

To be fair it’s not a debate that has been started by PR professionals. In fact it has been sparked by a new service launched by Media Monitors, which in its announcement claims the tool will “provide the region’s most comprehensive quantitative analysis tool for editorial content across all media types”.

It calls it “a measurement methodology that incorporates data on page impressions, unique visitors, content style, advertising rates, size, language scaling and placement to provide instantly comparable advertising space rates (ASR) across internet monitoring content.”

The announcement has led to an encouraging debate on Mumbrella, the media and marketing portal. Encouraging in that the majority view seems to be strongly against the whole initiative!

On Mumbrella Brendan Swale, Product Director at Media Monitors, rushes out in defence to say “that’s not what we really mean”. As he appears to backtrack at great speed he even goes so far as to say “Media Monitors does not believe that ASRs or AVEs are in any way a measurement of the value of public relations or communications, nor do they inform future strategy, which is what good outcome based measurement provides (which Media Monitors also provides)”. 

It must be the time of the year for the reincarnation of discredited concepts. I was in New Zealand recently and I was told that the PR subsidiary of an ad agency had made a presentation arguing for the use of AVE’s. I’m told they were pretty much howled down by the PR pros in the room. Good on them.

This is a topic I’ve written on for a long time.  I see that in PR Influences I wrote as long ago as 2001 about how the PRIA had joined other PR organisations around the world in rejecting AVE’s as a legitimate form of measuring the value of editorial coverage in media.

Back in March when I blogged on a US PR measurement survey I used the opportunity to canvass the whole topic again so I won’t go over it again.

If you are interested in the topic of PR and editorial measurement I’ve written more than a dozen articles previous articles on, and around, this topic.

The PRIA has even produced a White Paper  – Advertising Values to Measure PR – Why They Are Invalid.

I am sure that the debate on Mumbrella is just warming up. Certainly it’s worth taking a look at what’s being said, and especially the comments of Brendan Swale from Media Monitors.

As is the norm these days Media Monitors says that it welcomes the open debate on the topic. So much so that they’ve decided to invite anyone interested to join them for free drinks on July 22. Details are yet to be advised – which makes it sound a tad like a bit of a last minute crisis control exercise!

 Interestingly Media Monitors has new owners – one of those private equity investors.  One wonders what they think (or understand) about these issues.

No related posts.

If Australian PR Directors and Managers are a reflection of their US PR professional counterparts then the odds are that there is still a glaring lack of measurement or evaluation techniques being used by the PR Departments of Australian organisations.

That’s because a survey published yesterday in PR News based on questions put to nearly 800 US communications and PR professionals suggests that around 70 percent are not doing any serious measurement or evaluation of their PR activities.

The overall survey was about social media and digital measurement within public relations. However, what really surprised me was the answer to a more general question about attitudes towards, and the use of, PR measurement and evaluation techniques viz:

Q: Has media measurement become more sophisticated in your organisation in the last year?

And this was the analysis of the answers given!

30%  – Yes, robust system that includes digital measurement  

22% -  Just starting to think about it                                                   

17%  – We would like to be more sophisticated, but we don’t know where to start                                                    

11%  -  No, still counting print impressions                                       

10% -  It’s a 2011 goal                                                                                

10%  -  Other                                                                                                

Source: PR News and Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, based on 762 survey respondents (above figures rounded).

I’m really surprised by these results – especially the fact that not only 70 percent are not doing any serious measurement, but that close to 40 percent (or nearly 60% of these) are just starting to think about measurement and evaluation of their PR or don’t know where to start!

If that’s the use of measurement among US PR professionals then it suggests to me that the Australian figures would be even lower.

I have to admit that measurement (or lack of it) in PR has been a real bugbear of mine. Sure some aspects of it can get really complicated. But equally a lot of it can be really simple. In the last decade I’ve written several articles in PR Influences  (see Measurement, evaluation and monitoring) trying to explain the basic fundamentals of measurement and evaluation in public relations.

It seems to me that some of reasons why Australian organisations choose not to employ public relations measurement and evaluation techniques include:

1. Much of what Australian PR Departments do has become process driven, functional or reactive.  That results in a pre-occupation on doing tasks, and sending out media releases which results in a focus on ‘outputs’ rather than outcomes (although even outputs can be measured!)
2. Australian PR has become synonymous with media relations and publicity and too much of this is still evaluated on the volume of press clippings (although there’s some easily applied techniques that will provide more meaningful insights).
3. Even when it comes to media there’s often too much of a self-focus, inward-looking, emphasis on how much coverage ‘we’ are getting; rather than comparing against competitors. (In my view one of the most useful of the ‘simple’ media evaluation techniques is share of discussion).
4. Not enough emphasis is placed on ‘outcomes’ ie what change in attitude or behaviour has happened as a result of our communication?
5. Lastly, whether it’s the internal PR Department’s budget, or the budget for the PR agency, my experience is that in Australia there’s seldom an automatic budget allocation for measurement or evaluation. That means measurement doesn’t get any real thought or consideration and is put in the ‘too hard’ basket or as in the PR News/ Waggener Edstrom Worldwide survey – ‘its something we’ll think about for next year!’.

Having said all that I know from first-hand experience that some Australian organisations do make serious efforts to be accountable and apply measurement and evaluation techniques to their PR efforts.

But I think they are the exception rather than the rule. And I suspect the percentage would be even lower than the 30 percent of US PR professionals that claim in this survey to conduct a ‘robust’ measurement to support their PR initiatives.

However given my attitude towards evaluation I’m happy to be proven wrong and be told that there’s dozen’s of Australian PR Directors and Managers busily engaged in measurement and evaluation – and proving to their bosses the value PR is bringing to their organisation.  That would be encouraging news!

Note: Unfortunately access to the full results of the survey, jointly run by PR News, and specialist public relations and digital communications agency Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, is restricted to subscribers of PR News so I can’t comment any more on the results than I have –or give you access.

Related posts:

1. Australian online newsroom survey – food for thought for PR Directors

 A survey about the adoption of online newsrooms by some of Australia’s leading brand companies, released in the last few days by PR agency Burson-Marsteller, should provide food for thought for Australian PR Directors and Managers.

The basic conclusion of the survey is that online newsrooms are poor because they are either not providing a comprehensive enough range of content, or using the latest technology tools to raise the level of functionality of the sites.

It’s a superficially interesting survey and while it purports to survey Australia’s 20 leading brands as defined by Interbrand, it doesn’t actually list what these organisations are (you have to go and search for yourself). 

It also means that because the survey is about brands it misses some of other large organisations whose inclusion in the survey may have added further useful data.

Most importantly (to me) it doesn’t make any of the observations, findings or conclusions specific to the Australian brands/newsrooms it surveyed – apart from nominating Telstra’s as  best practice.  I can’t help but suspect that client sensitivities got in the way.

For these reasons, while I think the survey is useful and interesting, and B&M should be congratulated for doing it, in my view it only deserves a rating of 6/10 when it could have been 9/10.

But to me the real interest is not what information and tools the companies surveyed are using or not using. To me the issue is why?  How come intelligent and online savvy PR Directors and Managers who in the main understand the needs of the media are failing to come up to scratch (in B&M’s view)?

Online newsrooms are not new. Some years ago I did extensive research into them with the intention of launching a local Australian service – which for various reasons I decided not to proceed with.

However I’ve written about them over the years in PR Influences and one article I wrote in 2005 gives some simple advice which is still relevant (although of course the technology has moved a long way since then).

In my view there are three principal issues and challenges that PR Directors and Managers face in getting Online Newsrooms up and running in their organisations:

1. They don’t always have control. PR Directors and Manager’s battle internally over the question of ownership of web based communication and social media.  Even though it’s called an Online Newsroom Marketing often wants to take ownership and control. Regardless, unless there’s cooperation between the two, and agreement on the reasons for having an Online Newsroom, the result can fail to satisfy any of the external audiences.
2. There’s the philosophical argument as to whether an Online Newsroom should be passive or interactive and what elements it should contain. Perspectives vary from it being seen as simply a repository of information – like an electronic media kit – to it as an inter-active tool based around social media principles. Sometimes this is determined corporately as a matter of policy. But some is determined by the vision (or lack of it) coming from the PR Director or Manager.
3. Regardless of all this the issue often comes back to the turf war with the IT Department and/or their external technical providers.  IT Department’s are notoriously uncooperative and often they simply cannot provide the functionality that many in PR and marketing take for granted.

But the biggest problem is that too many efforts to build Online Newsroom’s become production driven and internally focused.  The real challenge is put the tensions and rivalry between PR, marketing and IT to one side and focus on who the end audience is and what they are looking for.

There’s plenty of survey’s around (albeit international) on online newsrooms that provide a real insight into what media want, and don’t want, and what works for them and doesn’t.

This 2009 Online Newsroom Survey from TEKgroup International is a good starting point – along with Burson-Marsteller’s Australian perspective.

Related posts:

1. PR Measurement & Evaluation: US survey raises questions about Australian practice
2. Australian PR agencies seek payment for pitches

In my experience across Australia and New Zealand no discipline that normally comes under the responsibility of public relations, communications or public affairs is more contentious, or subject to so much misunderstanding, as CSR – corporate social responsibility.

Many organisations in this part of the world talk about CSR. But most – in my experience – don’t practice it in its purest form. Most simply do community relations, or worse – cause related marketing- and call it CSR.

In fact those who are really CSR devotees vehemently object to the practice being the responsibility of PR or public affairs. They believe that any suggestion of a PR involvement undermines the credibility of CSR programs. And given where PR has gone in recent years I have some sympathy for this perspective.

That’s because as evidenced by the thrust of the definition on Wikipedia corporate social responsibility policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism in the form of corporate self regulation that is integrated into a business model.

That makes the latest Annual CSR Awards conducted by the US-based PR News worth a look. 

They’ve handed awards across a multitude of categories. But in my humble opinion when awards are made for “Green PR Campaign’, ‘Social Media Campaign’ and ‘Media Relations’ it undermines and devalues the concept of CSR.

CSR in its purest form is meant to be about avoiding publicity or marketing – and the media. And heaven forbid campaigns!

Notwithstanding this, and the fact that if you are like me you will see several awards given to activities that shouldn’t have even been up for consideration, the Awards are not all bad.  If you are responsible for running PR or communications within an organisation the Awards publication is worth a read.

Some major organizations such as Cisco, The Body Shop, GE, H.J. Heinz and Coca Cola are featured and there are some genuinely worthwhile examples of activities that definitely enhance the feeling of corporate responsibility or citizenship.

PR and Public Affairs Directors may also get value from reading about the skill sets and functional responsibilities of some of those chosen as ‘CSR Executives of the Year’.

But overall it just reinforces my feeling that CSR and public relations are very uneasy bedfellows and PR and Public Affairs’ executives need to be very careful when they interacting with senior management within their organisations on the topic of corporate social responsibility.
Here are three previous articles I have written on CSR in my capacity as Editor of ‘PR Influences’.

CSR – an important tool for most businesses
CSR – where are we now
Environmental PR – ‘green’ is more than a veneer

No related posts.

If you’re a PR or Communciations Manager you can only be successful in your job if you win the respect and confidence of your CEO.

Therefore you might want to take a look at what a survey of US CEO’s said they wanted/expected/valued from those running their PR and communications.  Its a good indication of what it takes to head up a PR or Communications Department in a large organisation (at least from a US perspective).

It’s a further extract from ‘The Authentic Enterprise’ from the Arthur Page Society which I thoroughly recommend to all PR and Communication Managers.  These are just the ‘headlines’ – I suggest you go to the report and read the detail. I think you will get a lot from it.

1. A detailed knowledge of the business
2. Extensive communications background
3. A crystal ball
4. C-suite credibility
5. Extensive internal relationships
6. A team player
7. An educator

What’s interesting to me is that coming through the criteria is the need for the PR/Communications person to have credibility and standing as a ‘business person’.  In other words communication theory means little if you can’t hold you own with your other executives. You need to be as business focussed as the best of them!

That, I believe, is the difference between being seen as an instigator of policy and strategy around the table, as opposed to being outside the room and just entrusted with the delivery of what’s already been decided.

What it means is that in order to climb the ladder to get the opportunity to be a PR or Communications Director or Manager you have to show competency and expertise in areas such as conventional and social media engagement, research, communication theory etc.

But once you get there you need to overlay that with a strong business orientation.  You also need to win the confidence of those across the whole of the executive structure.

However, the balancing act that the real PR professional has to play is being sufficiently in touch with the business to win credibility within, but be sufficiently detached to be able to give objective ‘devil’s advocate’ advice when new initiatives are being introduced i.e. be able to look from an audience or stakeholder perspective.

I don’t believe there are many within the business environment who have to straddle that fine line. That’s what often makes the PR role so difficult for many.  At times you have to stand up to the CEO or the Marketing Director, whose combined support you need to get around the table in the first place, in order to tell them that what they are planning has some flaws in it from a communications perspective.

PS You might want to also read a previous comment on this report from the Arthur Page Society.

No related posts.

If you are at the ’serious’ end of corporate PR in Australia  (ie working for a major corporation with responsibility for managing relationships with stakeholders and corporate reputation as opposed to simply handling media relations) the Arthur Page Society in New York should be on your radar.

The organisation, which is a kind of ‘think tank’ on PR, comprises a ‘who’s who’ of US public relations. It defines its mission as being “to strengthen the management policy role of the corporate relations officer…..” and from time to time produces some of the best and most thought provoking papers, albeit that they are usually rather academic and esoteric.

Their latest 60 page ‘missive’ – ‘The Authentic Enterprise’  – which is based on extensive research with CEO’s to discover their perceptions and needs is an excellent resource for those trying to get communication/public relations a seat at the top table.

For space reasons I shall comment here on the first section – ‘Relationships, values and the evolution of Corporate Communications’. My next blog will be on the second section.

This report says US CEO’s believe that PR or Communication Managers fall into three broad categories:

• Reactive communications leaders prioritize incoming inquiries, manage the press and public events, serve as spokespersons,monitor reputation and engage in crisismanagement.
• Proactive communications leaders develop ideas and campaigns, shape messaging, monitor reputation across multiple stakeholders and
  educate employees.
• Interactive communications leaders collaborate with key stakeholders, employees and the public at large; clarify and disseminate the
  company’s values; operate as shapers of the company’s strategic direction; and measure results in concrete, business-worthy ways.

Which role do you fall into? Is it a role you have chosen for yourself, or is it how your organisation wants PR to be?

If you are using the reactive model the bad news is that the US research showed that CEOs regarded this as now longer adequate.  Even the “proactive”approaches that have strengthened during the past couple of decades, while valuable, are seen by most CEO’s as no longer sufficient. “Our leaders recognize the needfor their enterprises to engage in fully interactive ways with all their important constituencies”, says the Report.

The report includes an insightful table which traces the evolution of public relations in three periods (1945-1995, 1995-2007 and the future)covering a whole lot of criteria ranging from changes in mission of PR, the roles and responsibilities,the audiences targeted to the talent pool PR draws on.

The Report claims that  Message “segmentation” is no longer practical or desirable. Despite the proliferation of diverse stakeholders, it claims all are now on a level playing field.

It asserts that communicators are uniquely positioned to become experts on the new art and science of organisational trust and looking ahead it lays out four new priorities and skills for which the Chief Communications Officer (an emerging fucntion in the US) must now assume a leadership role if they are going to be valued by the CEO:
1. Leadership in defining and instilling company values;
2. Leadership in building and managing multistakeholder relationships;
3. Leadership in enabling the enterprise with“new media” skills and tools; and
4. Leadership in building and managing trust, in all its dimensions.

As outlined in my recent blog ‘more clarity needed in internal communication roles, functions and titles’.  the struggle continues to get public relations inside Australian organisations better understood. So if my comments wet your appetite then I suggest you download the full report (but you may need to settle in a quiet corner with a drink to ensure you get full value from it).

PS: In recent years I’ve also written several articles on this topic at www.prinfluences.com.au – see ‘Internal Management of PR’

Related posts:

1. Rudd’s demise; the implications for Australian corporate PR and communications
2. New tool gives reason for PR Manager’s to revisit corporate reputation management
3. Change Management, PR and communication – what a potpurri!