Posts filed under ‘Media analysis & monitoring’

Mor-on Twittering

Following from my post about AVE’s and twittering in conference sessions earlier this week, it seems that some of the twitterers were not just against AVEs, but also against anyone defending them.

My point is  how can you hear  the argument if you are up to you neck in  negative twitters – not just with other people in the room, but the rest of the world too? Also, be careful.  Libel lawyers also subscribe to Twitter.

Basically, the presentation was:

a) Asked how many people in the room us AVE’s — almost everyone raised their hands

b) Given that it is a wide-spread practice, here are some ideas about how to use and not use them:

– no multipliers unless verified
– adjust for quality of placement
– possible use as a predictor of sales based on some recent experimental modeling work
– don’t call it the value of PR, call it what it is — comparable cost of buying the space as advertising, a cost that may be the perceived minimum value to the advertiser as a contribution to their business. This assumes the market for advertising is one that functions as an effective market with complete information (ie negotiated rates, not ratecard).

The presentation neither endorsed nor deplored the use of AVE’s, but instead recognized that its use is widespread. There may be reasons to use that approach, and if one does use it here are some do’s and don’ts…. (get the presentation by emailing David.Rockland@ketchum.com)

Richard

June 17, 2009 at 9:17 pm Leave a comment

Thoughts from the Berlin Measurement Summit

The 1st European Measurement Summit was a great success.  Delegates are busy doing a survey (organised by Benchpoint), and the feedback is looking very positive.
My Highlights:
Neil Martinson, head of press and PR in the UK Government’s Central Office of Information (COI), spends £25million (€29.3 million) on PR every year, so is fairly interested in knowing which half is wasted. He asked five  media measurement and evaluation specialists to do some test measurements on a recent campaign. The result? Five very different measurements, and no agreement on criteria or methodology.
David Rockland’s sprited defence of AVE’s (Advertising Value Equivalents). Actually, it’s quite a good measure of penetration, reach and performance. The only trouble is the V word. People manipulate the figures to give the impression that editorial is worth more than advertising, which is hardly objective or honest. And no two people seem to do it the same way (see above) But there has to be a way of integrating this figure with other measures to give a true index of success. By the way David is MD of Ketchum’s global research network, and knows a thing or two. Methinks the detractors are a little over the top on this one.
Social Media. Half the conference were struggling to understand what Social Media is and how to use it, while the other half were on line to each other commenting on what each speaker was saying, without the bother of joining in the discussion with other delegates. I was chuffed when the delegate in front of me started reading this blog  during one of the presentations. Should I join Twitter? Or is it just people shouting, and no-one else listening?

I shall be returning to more serious content in future posts. But meanwhile, please comment or contribute to the ongoing debate.

Richard

June 15, 2009 at 8:10 pm 1 comment

media evaluation – sentiment analysis

Monitoring of the media often involves assessing the “tone” of a media item – is it positive, negative or neutral on a given subject? This is often done manually and many of the large media monitoring services do this but it is a paid service not readily available to many.

Now there is a tool available to all to assess the “tone” of a media item (written):

Sentiment analyser>>

This is what David Phillips of the LeverWealth blog had to say about it:

“This kind of development is useful for analysing sentiment of news articles, blogs and other content, which is its primary purpose but it also has applications in evaluating style and and bias all of which are very useful to the PR industry, regulators and watchers of political sentinemt on and off line.”

Try it out here>>

Glenn

June 17, 2008 at 5:51 am 2 comments

Linking Media Coverage to Business Outcomes

Can we show a link between media coverage and desired business outcomes? A new study (pdf) from the US-based Institute for Public Relations has some interesting case studies that in several instances illustrate corresponding trends between increased media coverage and a desired business outcome occurring.

For example, they speak of a campaign on the importance of mammograms with the desired business outcome being an increase in the number of relevant medical procedures undertaken. Looking at the number of articles published on the issue and comparing it to the number of medical procedures, a correlation seems to exist. This can be seen in the above graph which shows in blue the number of press articles on the issues and in red the number of medical procedures undertaken (over 2 years in the US).

The authors of the study readily admit that they are making a jump in assuming “cause and effect” but what they are looking for is a “preponderance of evidence” that supports a correlation between media coverage and business outcomes.

What I find interesting is the jump from an output measure (clips) to a business outcome. Further, that they were able to find communication campaigns where a clear link was made between communication objectives and business objectives – as often there is a large gap between these two elements.

Read the full study “Exploring the Link Between Volume of Media Coverage and Business Outcomes”(pdf) By Angela Jeffrey, APR, Dr. David Michaelson, and Dr. Don W. Stacks

Glenn

November 15, 2006 at 9:50 pm 4 comments

Metrics: You are what you measure!

An interesting post from the Metrics Man on the “Media Measurement Catch-22” as he puts it. His main point is that “you are what you measure”, in other words, you will focus you efforts on achieving the metrics you set, and further:

If all you measure is media relations (primarily clip tonnage), that is how the PR profession will be valued.

Read the full post and if you are interested to learn more about the concept of metrics and how they influence our work efforts, consult the Hauser and Katz paper “Metrics: You are what you measure!” (pdf)

Glenn

November 1, 2006 at 9:45 pm Leave a comment

Media monitoring to behaviour changes

Can we make the logical step to “output” with media monitoring – measuring changes to knowledge, behaviour or attitudes? With traditional media monitoring we cannot. And that’s the missing link of most media monitoring – how can we tell if the media exposure led to a change with a given audience? Polling of audiences and making an informed assumption linking their media use with changes observed is possible – but cost and complexity are the main deterrents for many organisations.

But with the online environment, there are some interesting developments in the ability to link media exposure with an actual behaviour change of an audience. Take this example: people who read an article online and then link to it in their blog have made a behaviour change – a simple example. If we could show the path from media exposure to the triggering of thoughts, comments, actions and ideas we are heading in the “outcome” direction. David Phillips of Leaverwealth blog is working in this area and is developing software to summarise content of RSS feeds under subject headings and show the path to the original stories and posts. This uses a statistical/mathematical technique, Latent Semantic Analysis which extracts and represents the similarity of meaning of words and passages. Now, that’s much more valuable than clip counting.

Glenn

July 11, 2006 at 5:39 am 3 comments

Media monitoring – what is it worth? Part 2

Some further thoughts on media monitoring:

Michael Blower at the Media evaluation blog writes about audience reaction to the media as an “outtake” indicator with the new “BBC most popular stories” tool:

“For too long media content analysis has been driven by media output. This new tool makes it possible to do something which, up to now has been an expensive luxury – see an exact measure of media out-take.”

I find this a refreshing point of view from a media evaluator, moving the focus from “output” to “outtake”. If we consider “outtake” to mean understanding, reaction and favourability to a message, such website tools can provide a feedback – albeit not complete – on this level of measurement. I guess there must be a web-based tool that can collate and prioritise the popularity of news stories (based on visitor traffic) from the main news sites. Googletrends does this with search results and links it to news stories as I wrote about previously, a step in this direction. Of course we have to factor in the limitations of web metrics including pass-word protected content of news sites.

Glenn

July 7, 2006 at 12:23 pm Leave a comment

Older Posts Newer Posts


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,123 other followers

Categories

Feeds