MeasurePR: Why Are AVEs Still Around?
Guest post by Jen Zingsheim
[Ed: since I was out last week, the always-wonderful Jen Zingsheim agreed to moderate #measurePR. Here's her quick recap... and thank you, Jen!]
On July 5, the #measurePR chat discussed AVEs, specifically a Wall Street Journal Numbers blog post that challenges the notion that publicity can be equated with paid advertising.
- In addition to the Wall Street Journal blog post and print piece, smart measurement guy and previous #MeasurePR guest Don Bartholomew of Fleishman-Hillard wrote a terrific piece challenging AVEs.
- Don’s piece and the WSJ piece kicked off a discussion about whether coverage of the weaknesses of AVE in such a high profile publication such as the WSJ might allow some organizations cover for leaving this questionable metric in the dustbin. The conclusion was: not likely.
It’s just too simple a number—no matter how wrong—and until we (as an industry) come up with a simple number to replace it, AVE will probably continue to be used.
- That led to a discussion about what the obstacles are for putting outcomes-based measurement in place. Mike Donatello asks if it is cost, time, or possibly ignorance. John Trader suggested that different verticals make it difficult to standardize.
- We also discussed summer reading lists. John Trader says that Measure What Matters by Katie Paine, is on his list, as is Social Media ROI by Olivier Blanchard.
MeasurePR: The Community Edition
Guest post by Jen Zingsheim
[Ed: Since I was at BlogWorld all last week and then took a much-needed couple of days for R&R, Jen Zingsheim was kind enough to guest-moderate #measurePR for me. Here's her quick recap.]
On May 24, the #MeasurePR chat was a community chat, discussing the reporting side of measurement—how PRs plan for a tool throwing bad numbers, reporting numbers that contradict, and whether Share of Voice (SOV) is a useful or useless PR metric.
- Klout has been having some issues over the past couple of days, leading C.C. Chapman to blog about the Great Klout Plunge of 2011. This gave rise to the first question of the chat: do you have a backup plan in place to measure when you rely on tools, or is this just a risk you run when using someone else’s measurement system (a tool, in other words).
- Mike Donatello pointed out that having a backup system isn’t usually realistic, as budgets no longer allow for that level of redundancy. He added that it makes sense to go with the most “bulletproof” tool providers for that reason (true, that). Lewis Poretz added that in addition to bulletproof, you should make sure there’s customer service available when you need it.
- There were several suggestions on what to do if data from social media and traditional media contradict one another. CARMA_Tweets suggests examining the nature of the media, and checking demographic factors of each audience, such as age, to see if that explains the difference.
- Dave Fleet posted that he feels Share of Voice is a useless metric for PR. Many agreed, but with the caveat that context is important in looking at SOV, as it can be a useful metric under certain circumstances.
The discussion also touched on the “splinternet” and measuring proprietary platforms, as well as asking if perhaps clients are less interested in measurement than we are. You can view the full MeasurePR transcript for May 24 via this link.
[And don't forget we'll be back with #measurePR next week; June 7, 12-1 pm ET. Hope to see you there!]
Filed under Guest Posts, Measurement, MeasurePR, Public Relations | Tags: jen zingsheim, klout, PR measurement | Comments (2)A Double Dose of #measurePR
You’ve probably been wondering where the #measurePR Twitter chat recaps are.
Well, once WTHashtag went down, all of us who moderate chats on a regular basis were scratching our heads a little… ‘cos where were we supposed to get the chat transcripts from?
I recently started using RowFeeder and, fortunately, had set up a search for #measurepr there. So that’s where I pulled these transcripts from. I apologize for how late the recaps are, but better late than never, right?
On April 26, Steve King aka @smallbizlabs returned for a second engagement, to talk more about research. Some of his nuggets:
- On explaining “confidence interval” or “margin of error” (terms we see often, and sometimes get wrong), Steve said it’s “the plus-or-minus figure reported in newspaper opinion poll results.” It tells you how sure you can be (of those results), and is expressed as a percentage, with 5% being generally used. Steve also recommended Raosoft’s sample size calculator, which will do the math for you (and which Narciso Tovar was quite happy about).
- During Steve’s last visit to #measurepr, he’d mentioned that one of the potential problems with online surveys is their lack of statistical significance. This time around, he elaborated, explaining that online samples can be biased. For example, “about 15% of Americans not online, so online surveys cannot include them.”
- However, Steve conceded that online surveys have advantages too – they’re quicker and cheaper. So the key thing is to be aware of their limitations before you decide to do one.
Steve also chatted about the up- and down-sides of doing qualitative research online, and you can see the entire chat via this link to the transcript of #measurePR with Steve King, Round 2.
Filed under Measurement, MeasurePR, Public Relations, Shonali Burke, Social Media, Twitter | Tags: #measurepr, eric peterson, influence, PR measurement, small business labs, steve king, twitalyzer | Comments (2)
