Click
here to follow
Katie Delahaye Paine on Twitter.
It's one thing to send me mindless pitches about measurement tools like a magnum spectrometer
(do they think I'll put in my comparison table right next to Radian 6?) or to suggest that I want to talk to you about your great new book on how to measure your weight loss but to pitch me on a success story based on AVEs is clear proof that you are either from another planet or have never read anything I've ever written.
Honesty, this is what I got just now:
State Farm Hit it “Out of the Park” at the 2011 MLB Home Run Derby, Earning $45,000,000 in Broadcast Exposure
... According to Front Row Analytics, for the fourth year in a row State Farm Insurance Company increased its broadcast media value during the competition, earning over $45,000,000 in exposure time....
Another big winner was Miller Lite, whose Chase Field signs in center field and above the “Diamond Club” brought in 13 minutes and 54 seconds and over $4,000,000 worth of broadcast exposure.
To be honest, I've never watched the All Star Derby and probably never will. I've watched my fair share of sporting events on TV and never once has a sign inspired me to switch insurance companies or make Miller
my beverage of choice. Had State Farm or Miller actually PAID $45 million or even $4 million for an ad, they might have sent a message to me that made me at least consider a different brand. Actually, to be honest, the last time I drank Miller was the summer of 1970, so maybe not. But they might have reminded me how much I was craving a Molson 67. Or that I am in the market for a new life insurance policy and that State Farm sells them.
I watched a fair amount of women's soccer over the weekend, but I couldn't possibly have told you who's name was on the signs behind that famous goal.
So lets get honest, folks. If the CFO at State Farm or Miller are measuring the ROI of their signage at the field by counting minutes and equating them with the broadcast fees, I'm the queen of England. They know they got their money's worth in sky boxes, and VIP treatment, and I'm sure counted success by renewals and new accounts. And last I checked, I'm the queen of a much smaller world.
In the final, both calculations are just for laughs!
Posted by: Martin Varesio | March 01, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Katie, you're the queen. Lets not forget that.
BR,
http://kerjaparttime.blogspotmalaysia.com
Posted by: kerja part time | July 23, 2011 at 10:21 AM
Social Networking sites are major implementation of Web2.0.They have changed the face of internet .They help to drive traffic towards our sites. But in the case of social networking sites the target audience will be less .But where as an SEO leads us to required target audience. socialnetworkinglist
Posted by: Timesheet | July 22, 2011 at 03:09 AM
Dear Joe,
I am well aware of how billboard advertising is measured, and also do understand the basis of how this figure was calculated, having been measuring various forms of communications for some 23 years. However, you miss my point. If you only judge value by what it might have cost you to purchase that space on TV, and not by the actual results and impact on the business, you can't say that you "hit it out of the ballpark" in terms of results. The press release I received, with a request to publicize these results was in my mind, misleading which is why I blogged about it.
Posted by: Katie Delahaye Paine | July 19, 2011 at 04:20 PM
Your ignorance is truly amazing. You clearly do not understand that the measured exposure is a comparison with outdoor advertising using a static billboard. This has nothing to do with AVE. Before you run off at the mouth you should learn the basics of media and marketing communications.
Posted by: Joe Smith | July 19, 2011 at 12:29 PM
The more things change, the more they stay the same. A new generation of justifiers making the same mistakes we saw 30 years ago!
Posted by: Tom Nicholson | July 13, 2011 at 05:13 PM
...but you DID end up writing about them and restating their bullet messages. A landmark day for bad pitch success?
Posted by: Kate Robins | July 13, 2011 at 10:31 AM
They obviously don't read your blog (or your books). Now, what I want to know is whether you're going to call them a Measurement Menace?!
Posted by: Shonali | July 13, 2011 at 09:19 AM
Monica you make a great point. 50% of the metrics put out there are used for justification not improvement. The question you should ask is what metrics do I need to make my organization more successful?
Posted by: Katie Delahaye Paine | July 13, 2011 at 07:53 AM
Hi Katie! While Front Row Analytics based their calculations on data, and mine was pulled out of thin air for fun... in the end, both calculations are just for laughs!
Posted by: Monica Otulakowski | July 12, 2011 at 09:49 PM
Monica, I love it! according to who's calculations ???
Posted by: Katie Delahaye Paine | July 12, 2011 at 08:23 PM
Agreed. I'm "student" in the measurement world and even with a preliminary knowledge base, I'm surprised that these claims can be made with a straight face. Of course, I'm not surprised I agree considering I am learning a lot from 'Measure What Matters'. By the way, just for posting this comment I earned $4600 in exposure.
Posted by: Monica Otulakowski | July 12, 2011 at 07:39 PM
God Save the Queen...
Your observation is spot on. Using Advertising Equivalents as your only measure, and within a vacuum, gives a very distorted view of success or failure. Quantitative measures, in general, should only be used to evaluate one story relative to another. Qualitative measurement takes a real methodology in order to be truly valid.
Posted by: Todd Murphy | July 12, 2011 at 03:47 PM