As I've discussed before when the topic of ad equivalency has been brought
up, I have to track ad equivalency. My adminstration understands dollars
therefore any attempts to do away with ad equivalency in the past four years
have been met with a resounding NO.
I'm fortunate that in my job I rarely
have to deal with negative coverage, but for the second time in the past
four years I'm now forced to deal with it. We've had a situation occur that
has brought negative attention to the organization. The situation has been covered by some newspapers. I feel that ethically I must include the coverage, even if it is negative in my quarterly report. I also feel
that I must assign it the ad equivalency because every other clip is
assigned the ad equivalency.
What I'm faced with is knowing that when my
associate v.p. is handedthe report he will demand that I erase this
coverage from my report.I know I will be asked to do this because he asked
me to do it in myfirst six months on the job when a negative story came
out. When I refused that first time I was told I may leave the clips in the report but must subtract out the dollar amounts. For example, if my total for the quarter was $200,000 in ad equivalency and this one particular negative story was worth $2,000 in ad equivalency, my report
had to reflect $198,000 in ad equivalency. Is subtracting out the dollar
amount of the negative coverage really the answer? Your guidance in this
matter is appreciated.
SO many issues here it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, if the CFO of your organization went into the Director or the Board or the Executive Director or anyone else in charge, with an accounting system based on bad data or worse bad theory, they'd be fired in five minutes. So how does your VP get away with with presenting fraudulent data? Yours is a government organization, and as such, paid for by voters and subject to sunshine laws. I'm not sure about the laws of Arkansas, but in most places knowingly presenting falsified data is illegal.
Secondly, Ad equivalency is based on the assumption that advertising and PR are equivalent, when we know they are not. PR is about building relationships and reputation and earning media. Advertising is when you pay to get your messages in front of a desired set of eyeballs. It's the equivalent of redoing your bathroom and when its all done calling up a landscaper and asking them for a quote to do the same thing.
Finally, even if you could somehow prove, and no one ever has, that an editorial and an ad have identical impact on a readers opinion, how in anyone's mind could a negative story be worth $2000. Would you PAY to place a negative story in a paper? This makes no sense.
If you must compare advertising and PR, look at the cost per message communicated. Look at your coverage and determine what, if any of the coverage contains your key messages. Then add up the circulation figures of ONLY THOSE ARTICLES that contain your key messages and leave the reader more likely to support your position or do business with the company. Divide your PR budget by the total number of opportunities to see your key message and you get a Cost per Opportunity to see a Key Message. You can then take your ad budget, look at how many opportunities to see that you've paid for. Comparing the two numbers gets you to the relative value of PR.
Then, print out those results and take them with you on your next job interview, which I strongly recommend you schedule tomorrow. Working for someone that unethical is not doing your career any good.
Recent Comments