The Public Relations industry has been debating how to measure the value of PR since its inception and the discussion flares up regularly.
The Wall St Journal recently examined the PR value of a photo of a couple kissing during the Vancouver riots and of President Obama drinking a pint of Guinness, among other things. This discussion was then narrowed in Business Insider by the CEO of US firm, 5W Public Relations commenting about PR versus advertising – also an age-old argument.
The Wall St Journal article sites a suggested PR value of (US)$10.5 million for the couple kissing and (US)$32 million for the President drinking Guinness. These figures are based on the PR industry norm of calculating the value of media coverage against the cost of advertising in the same space and the perception that unpaid coverage carries a greater weighting than advertising. We call this EAV – equivalent advertising value.
This approach and these articles fail to recognise the only effective determinant of the value of any communications activity, or marketing activity for that matter. This is to ask: how has this activity helped an organisation or business meet its objectives?
We can safely assume that the Guinness drinking coverage has some PR value when measured against business objectives – even if the photo wasn’t organised by Guinness. At the very least, short-term sales in the US should go up and increased sales would always be an objective of the Guinness marketing and PR teams. But whether its (US)$32 million in value, who knows?
We can also confidently say the suggested value of the couple kissing is dramatically overinflated. In fact, using the criteria of meeting objectives, it has no PR value whatsoever. No business or organisation is directly associated with the kiss, so nobody will realise a direct business benefit from the coverage. So where’s the value?
We’re not suggesting media coverage does not have value. Quite the opposite. It can have immense value and generate an enormous return for an organisation provided it helps that organisation meet specific and well defined objectives (whether around sales, brand recognition, influence etc.) and is part of a broader communications strategy.
But as an industry we need to be very careful about presenting success to our clients on the basis of column inches or airtime alone, and be even more careful about inflating the value of this coverage with a subjective dollar figure. Lots of media coverage may not necessarily translate into business success and clients will see right through these “industry” measures pretty quickly.
Good communications people will spend time at the front end of any communications discussion clearly defining business objectives and articulating how communications can help achieve these. After all, it is these objectives that we expect our plan and our work to be measured against. We will only recommend activity that can be tracked back to these objectives and challenge our clients if they want to invest in activity that cannot.
Our advice to business decision makers: be very wary of anyone trying to sell you a communications idea that does not relate directly back to your objectives and tries to measure success in any other way.
Our advice to communications practitioners: before you recommend an idea or course of action, consider it against what your client or your business is trying to achieve and only recommend activity that stacks up.
Daniel