The Advertising Value Equivalent (AVE) was, for a very long
time, the most widely used tool for measuring the effectiveness of PR
campaigns. However, it’s integrity was based on certain assumptions which, with
the benefit of experience, have proved to be patently flawed. The PR community
has finally come to terms with this reality, and the AVE has since ceased to be
an acceptable PR metric. Here are 7 good reasons why:
# No. 1: AVE Measures
Output, Not Outcomes
PR objectives are invariably about qualitative ‘outcomes’
(behavior and attitude change, perception, etc.), not quantitative ‘output’
like media mentions, which is what AVE measures. It does not scientifically
establish a correlation between the output recorded and the outcomes expected.
# No. 2: AVE Does Not
Take Account Of Negative Mentions
AVE works on the assumption that all the news output is
positive. But we know this is not always the case. Some people try to discount
‘negative’ AVE, but that in itself is not realistic, because that approach does
not place an accurate value on the extent of damage to reputation occasioned by
the negative report.
# No. 3: There Is No
Universal Standard For Computing ‘PR Value’
AVE is useful to the PR man to the extent that it enables him
compute the PR Value of his media output. Theoretically, PR Value is AVE
multiplied by ‘x’, where ‘x’ represents the ‘credibility’ or ‘third party
endorsement’ factor, which editorial output intrinsically enjoys. Unfortunately,
there is no universally accepted value for ‘x’ – it could range from 3 to 12 depending
on the market! Without a universally acceptable multiplier benchmark, of what
value is the AVE to PR measurement then, seeing as different people measuring
the same campaign are likely to end up with different results?
# No. 4: AVE Does Not
Measure How Much Mention
AVE does not reflect the amount or quality of mention the
brand gets within the story. Is it a headline mention, or just a passive reference
buried deep inside the report? If competition is also featured in the story,
there is no means to tell the respective scale or quality of mentions. In other
words, how much of the article is really relevant, and should ideally be
measured?
#No. 5: AVE Does Not
Reflect ‘Actual’ Advert Rates
AVE computation is based on the published gross Rate Card
rates. But we know that advertising and media buying agencies enjoy different
levels of commissions on those rates. Ideally therefore, AVE should be calculated
on the actual, net advert rate. How do you determine that universally and
across board?
#No. 6: AVE Does Not Show
Who’s Reading!
AVE at best measures what is published, not who, or how many
people, actually read the articles. This point is particularly important given
the current trend in which there is a world-wide decline in print media
readership. The ‘reach’ factor is not addressed at all. Yet it should be an
important KPI in PR campaign execution.
# No. 7: AVE Is Not
Relevant To Online/Social Media Content
It is practically impossible to attribute any form of AVE to
online or social media content. How do you, for example, assign a value to a
tweet, Facebook update or blog post? When you consider that a huge part of PR
is now done online, it stands to reason to question a metric that does not have
‘jurisdiction’ over such an important platform.
Postscript: Now that the AVE has been so
thoroughly discredited, what are the new PR measurement options available? It
is still largely Work In Progress, but ‘The Barcelona Declaration’ points the
way in a new direction.
I shall discuss its high points in the second and concluding
part of this piece.
0 comments:
Post a Comment