After the Barcelona Principle, the Lisbon Priorities?

It was less than two weeks ago that I landed in Lisbon
just in time for our panel discussion on "Moving towards a Global Standard for Social Media Measurement."Together with my fellow panelists, Richard Bagnall,   
Managing Director of Metrica and

 

Tim Marklein
newly appointed direcor of WCG Analysitcs Group, we outlined the state of social media today, and invited the attendees to suggest areas that they wanted the collective bodies to pursue. This was just one element in the broader agenda of AMEC to build on last year's Barcelona Principles and shape the measurement agenda going forward.

Maybe it's jet lag, or a just a dose of realism, but I have serious doubts about whether all these smart people and their hard work are setting anyone's agendas, or having any impact at all.

Take this delightful quote:

According to Kantar, Obama's trip generated more than $20m of free publicity for the beer brand.

That from the same Kantar that sent 11 people to the Lisbon Summit and was there when we voted on the Barcelona Principles. Yet those delegates don't have enough clout with the PR department to convince them that PR is isn't "free publicity" and that equating exposure to revenue is completely bogus?

Or Ketchum, who's own David Rockland headed up both the session that approved the Barcelona Prinpciples AND the session in Lisbon to set the agenda going forward. Yet on it's web site you can find a description of how it measures social media, under the heading: Advertising Equivalency: 

Developed based on research of published rates by BlogAds and counsel/guidance from Omnicom's OMD, the Zócalo Group AdEq calculates the equivalent advertising costs of EDE.

"If we get XX number of EDE through earned social media marketing, what would it cost to reach the same number of people through paid ads?"

The AdEq is now developed for blogs and forums, and work is underway to develop AdEq for Twitter, social networks (Facebook, MySpace, etc.), and picture/video sharing sites.

Or Hill & Knowlton, who's own Ruth Pestana lead the task force to create new "validated metrics" that have become the better alternative to AVEs. On it's web site it features a case study that includes the following:

The programme gained huge success and advertising value achieved from media coverage exceeded HK$1 million within the first month after the PR campaign was launched.

My point is that despite the loftiness of our goals and the excellence of our thought leaders, all this may be nothing more than a measurement version of Macbeth...

"a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Now I realize that no one in Lisbon or Barcelona is an idiot, and I am fully aware that the thought leaders in Lisbon are far removed from the internal marketers that provide quotes to PR Week or content for the webs sites. But my point is that unless management at the highest level of the  big agencies and media groups buy into these principles we so enthusiastically vote for, all the votes and all the prinicples will signify nothing. 

I took a lot of heat last year for advocating an industry boycott of firms offering Ad Value Equivalency. My arguement was that the times called for bold moves, and unless someone took some action, the Barcelona Principles would be looked upon as just more PR hot air. The good news is that some agencies did fully endorse them. And judging from the calls I've been getting, more and more large agencies and their clients are looking for alternatives.

But unless we get alignment within organizations on what constitutes real PR measurement, we will never achieve our stated priorities that we voted on in Lisbon. Here they are:

1. How to measure the return on investment (ROI) of public relations (89%)
2. Create and adopt global standards for social media measurement (83%)
3. Measurement of PR campaigns and programmes needs to become an intrinsic part of the PR toolkit (73%)
4. Institute a client education program such that clients insist on measurement of outputs, outcomes and business results from PR programs (61%)

If our web sites and our senior managment still think that the ROI of PR is AVEs, that a standard for social media measurement is a social media version of AVEs and that AVEs should be part of a PR toolkit, we are worse than idiots. We are hypocrites.

 

Comments

[mein tenu samjhawan ki]

impressive man :-)

[Katie Delahaye Paine]

Thank you both Linda and Mike for great responses. As you are well aware, I see my role to be the provocateur because I'm willing to take the arrows that come with leading the charge. I will continue to focus the spotlight wherever think it can do the most good. Right now, it is at the highest levels of the organizations that frequently pay the bills

[Linda Locke]

Yea verily, Katie. I see my some of my corporate clients reporting AVE - given to them by their agencies - and it's clear there is a chicken-and-egg question. Are the clients insisting or are the agencies recommending? Or is it the math-anxiety issues that weakens our profession? The people who have built their careers on AVE and clip poundage are in charge, and if those tools have made them successful then they are going to keep using them. However, there are so many good and getting-better measurement tools being embraced by emerging leaders that I think change is indeed coming.

[Mike Daniels]

We all, I’m sure, regret that the entire PR world hasn’t simply rejected the discredited AVE metric overnight. However, eliminating the mindset that views AVEs as a reliable and credible metric is a process, a collaborative effort to re-frame the measurement debate to eliminate AVEs and to move us forward.

The quest to write AVE's final obituary is an ongoing task - one that involves many global PR associations, PR agencies large and small, measurement companies, in house communications and marketing professionals, academics and commentators. Our progress since Barcelona has been far reaching and deep - it's clear that there's no going back for the industry. Of course it can sometimes feel like a slower process than we would ideally like, but I'm confident it will begin to move faster because of the common position the industry took at Barcelona. From my own experience, having been involved in the industry for some 20 years. I believe we have made more progress in the past year, since Barcelona, by working together on this issue, than in the previous ten years of fragmented and individual efforts.

The best way to make our progress faster would be to focus on developing and using tools like
AMEC's Valid Metrics grids to help educate PR professionals around the world about the alternatives to AVE. When I present the Valid Metrics to PR practitioners, it is really gratifying to see how quickly and easily it gives the audience a new frame of reference and a new vocabulary to inform their thinking about metrics... One where AVE simply doesn't exist any longer.

Barcelona was a crucial event, when the industry set the floor to acceptable measurement standards, including the rejection of AVE. The Lisbon Agenda was always designed to provide just what it says in the title - a set of priorities that the industry, collaboratively and collectively agreed should form the basis for debate and further research over the coming years. It's an enabling initiative - not as eyecatching perhaps as the Barcelona Principles, but equally important in the long run.

AMEC actively seeks to encourage robust debate around the best ways to ensure AVE sinks from sight as quickly as possible - we welcome divergent views. But it's important to remember that our progress has been so strong in the past few months because our debates were constructive, collaborative and thoughtful - that must be the best way for us to reach our shared goal.

Mike Daniels
Chair, AMEC