Saying "everyone does it" doesn't mean its the right thing to do

Having spent 2 days at the Inbound Marketing Summit  I learned the following:

• 8 out of 10 mktg execs believe social media can build brand and relationships.
• Nieslen saw a 70% jump in use of social media in the last year 
• In the last month one of the major news corps in Canada plus Gourmet Magazine  folded
• Ad revenue is down dramatically
• Traditional Advertising is dead as we know it.

 Whether or not you agree with these statements (all made by the distinguished speakers at the Inbound Marketing Summit) you can't deny that the media and advertising world as we know it is over.

So why, at the same time the IMS09 is going on, was another speaker at another PR and marketing conference:  advocating using AVE (Ad Value Equivalency) as a measurement for PR? Why would PR want to compare itself to an industry and a business that is in, if not its death throws, certainly in the process of morphing into something we've never seen before. 

The speaker's argument is that since most PR people use AVEs anyway, we might as well teach them how to "do it right."  To me, that sounds like Southerners in the 1840s that argued against emancipation because "everyone does it,"  but then suggesting perhaps a Martha Stewart makeover for the slave quarters. There are lots of things that "everyone does"  that are still the wrong thing to do. One of my fellow suppliers, Burrelles, justifies its use of AVES because "Customers demand it." Makes me wonder if "customers"  demanded child porn and heroin would they deliver those as well?

Folks, it's time to face reality. AVEs are irrelevant when traditional media is going away in its current form, when Procter & Gamble is says it only wants to pay for engagement, IBM declares Advertising dead, and Southwest Airlines and Dell are measuring their PR/Social Media efforts in terms of revenue. The customers that cling to this metrics deserve to be fired, and with luck, they'll soon get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with improving, and measuring our relationships with our constituencies. For my colleagues in the measurement business, advocating a metric that will ultimately mislead the client is simply the wrong thing to do.

Comments

[Craig Hodges]

I still talk, on a regular basis, to companies that use AVE. They sound apologetic when they admit to employing it and - even before I have to - they trot out the reasons it's a totally flawed metric. So why is it still used? It's a cheap and easy way of providing the concise, dollar-based metrics that boards commonly want. I think most people know the figure may as well have been plucked from the air. But if the alternative is investing a lot of time and money on studies to isolate the results of a PR campaign from other marketing activities, I think many will continue to opt for cheap and easy.

[Paul Weiss]

PR should not follow the models set up by traditional advertising; they have now become wildly divergent to the point of being oil and water. It doesn't matter that social media is 70% up this year according to Neilson; people expect social media to be advertising light if not free and will desert if it isn't (Myspace anyone?).

Paul Weiss
blogs.vbpoutsourcing.com

[Promotional Products]

I think Laurie makes a great point, relevant metrics are absolutely necessary moving forward. I like your passion in this post, you make a great argument.

[Adrienne Webb]

I have to agree with Kelly Rusk’s comment. In my experience, I have seen public relations practitioners use AVEs only because their clients request it. It has also been my impression that the clients requesting AVEs are too far removed from the PR and advertising industries to recognize AVEs are no longer relevant. Since it is likely in the best interest of the client to use more advanced methods of measuring ad value, how do you suggest PR practitioners approach this with clients, and more specifically, what are some simple measurements PR practitioners can ease their clients into using instead of AVEs?

[Kelly Rusk]

Hi Katie,

I definitely agree with you, but in defense of good PR people using AVEs, I think the disconnect happens internally--For example, execs outside of PR who want believe AVEs are a good measure and ask their PR people to use it.

I think for anyone who inherently knows the difference between PR and advertising it's an easy argument, but more difficult for those outside the industry.

Obviously it's up to the PR people to teach superiors/coworkers the right way, but how do you suggest this is accomplished? (Besides pointing them to your blog, which would probably help!)

[Laurie Myer]

I could not agree with you more! Great post. I think it's time to jump off this bandwagon - it's headed for the ditch. It will take work however to learn to apply metrics that are relevant in today's world - work and good planning!

[steve cunningham]

If there's one bright spot in all of this, it's that I think we've turned the corner. Those who do it like it's always been done are quickly making themselves irrelevant, and those who figure out the "new way" (like yourself) will be reaping the benefits.