We've recently become a member of AMEC, because we believe that measurement and evaluation of the media and PR is very important. Companies need to know a great deal more how effective their media and PR campaigns are. One of the areas we are specialising in is tourism. A different methodology will have to be used for hotels and hospitality than for restaurants and adventure activities for example.
Here is what AMEC says about AVEs.
AMEC, the International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC), is inviting the support of public relations and communications organisations to join a global initiative to eradicate fully the use of Advertising Equivalency Value (AVE) and all of its derivatives as metrics in public relations work.
AMEC is inviting support in a number of practical steps which form part of a long-term industry education project.Adopting a “Say No to AVEs” campaign logo.
- Inviting all international trade associations to stop the use of AVEs in national PR Awards schemes. AMEC is asking its partners to use this wording in the Terms and Conditions of Entry in Award schemes and in briefing notes to judges: Entries must not use Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs) as the sole means of showing measurement for a campaign. Entries that use AVEs will be disqualified.
- To join together through training programmes and events, to continue to push the message that by using AVEs it demeans the credibility of the PR consultancy or internal comms team involved.
PRCA and ICCO became the first industry partners to join AMEC’s “Say No to AVEs” educational programme.
AMEC has already made improvements to its free to use Integrated Evaluation Framework to make it an easier to use replacement for AVEs. AMEC has now created a global online educational resource centre to show why the metric is invalid
Richard Bagnall, AMEC Chairman, said AMEC’s Global Summit on Measurement, held for the first time in Asia in May had ignited the need to take decisive action to eradicate AVEs.
Bagnall, Global Strategy Consultant with Prime Research UK, said: “It’s time AVEs stopped being a talking point in our industry. The way forward is to work with other friends and partners in the worldwide public relations industry to eradicate this derided metric.”
Bagnall said new industry research showed the client demand for AVEs had dropped from 80% in 2010 to just 18% this year. He added: “Now is the time to kill it off completely once and for all.”
He said: AMEC’s new and updated Integrated Evaluation Framework offered a new way for campaigns to be planned carefully and measured effectively.
“The Framework makes sense of the complexities of working across the PESO channels and shows how to shift the emphasis of evaluation from counting outputs to proving value via the critical outtakes, outcomes and organisational impact of our work, “added Bagnall.
And this is what communication and PR professionals have to say about AVEs.
The Academic Advisory Group to AMEC, comprised of Professor Anne Gregory, University of Huddersfield, UK; Professor Jim Macnamara, University of Technology Sydney (Chair); Dr Tina McCorkindale, President and CEO of the Institute for Public Relations (IPR); Professor Brad Rawlins, Arkansas State University; Professor Don Stacks, University of Miami; Emeritus Professor Tom Watson, Bournemouth University, UK; and Professor Ansgar Zerfass, University of Leipzig stated:
“Industry research studies indicate that so-called ‘advertising value equivalents’ (AVEs), also referred to ‘equivalent advertising value’, are still used by up to a third of PR and corporate communication practitioners worldwide despite irrefutable evidence that the calculation is invalid and misleading.
“AVEs, which equate the value of editorial media coverage with the cost of an equivalent amount of advertising, have been discredited as an evaluation method by a number of research studies on the grounds that:
- They confuse value with cost, using an estimate of the cost of paid media advertising as the alleged value of editorial media publicity. The value of advertising is not measured by how much it costs. So such comparisons are conceptually and practically flawed;
- Furthermore, the estimated ‘cost’ figures are hypothetical (what paid media advertising would have cost if purchased in the same media). Advertising is selectively placed and, in many instances, would not be placed in the media in which editorial publicity appears;
- Advertising and PR are not equivalent. While advertising is controlled in terms of placement and content, editorial media coverage is uncontrolled and variable in terms of placement, content, and tone and needs to be analyzed qualitatively as well as quantitatively;
- PR involves a much wider range of communication activities than editorial media coverage (e.g., Web sites, events, community relations) for which AVEs are irrelevant;
- AVEs make no contribution to demonstrating outcomes or impact of communication, which should be the focus of evaluation.”
AMEC (the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication), has issued a statement detailing 22 reasons that AVEs are a flawed method of evaluation for PR, which further explains why AVEs are invalid and misleading.
Also, the Barcelona Principles supported by professional PR and communication industry bodies worldwide state that AVEs are not the value of PR or communication.
Communication and PR academics recommend that industry professionals use valid social science research methods for evaluation.
Comments