Never have I been so discouraged. Eric Schwartzman (OnTheRecord on Twitter) who is someone I like and admire, just asked the Twitterverse the following question:
if can anyone recommend an online monitoring/analysis service that provides an ad equivilency figure for online coverage?
This is SO wrong, Eric, it belongs in the Clueless Train Manifesto. Ad Value Equivalencies are based on column inches and audited circulations from traditional media. Never mind that there is no evidence anywhere that consumers behave the same way when they see and ad or editorial, and that there's no science behind the calculations, and most developed countries have rejected this metric, it also has nothing to do with what people are seeing, hearing, believing or doing. So why do you care?
In social media the science is even more dubious. What "Ads" are you comparing your editorial to? Pop Ups, Banners, Ad Words, YouTube?, Facebook ads? Underwriting? how would you calculate an "equivalent" between a blog that doesn't accept advertising and doesn't share its visitor numbers but has huge influence, such as Shel Israel's and a pop-up ad that every ignores?
More importantly, why would you want to? There is no science here, Eric. So if you or anyone provides this so-called "equivalency" they're lying to the client and delivering unadulterated crap.Why wouldn't you instead spend the time and resources studying what people did after reading that blog?
I'm curious if anyone DOES recommend an agency that provides these bogus numbers. I'd love to warn my clients away from them.