Thoughts on the Berlin Protocol

Barry Leggetter, AMEC's Executive Director and the force behind last week's Berlin Measurement Summit, very correctly asked me for specifics of "The Berlin Protocol" that I proposed in my post last week.
So here's a start.

 

• 1.       We agree to use no research methodology that isn’t based on solid research and facts
• 2.       We agree to a standard principle that the best measurements are business outcomes not exposure, AVE or OTS
• 3.       We all agree to avoid to not use multipliers and other non-proven false statistics
• 4.       We agree that transparency is key to credibility in  our industry, and so we agree to reveal, if asked, our methodologies and our intercoder reliability scores and eschew “black boxes” and mystery algorithms
• 5.       We do not promote or offer or endorse AVEs, and if they are used, they must discount negative stories, stories that do not contain key messages, and stories that do not mention the brand in the headline or top 20% of the story. (i.e. stories you’d actually be willing to pay for)

Further thoughts? Additions? ?

Comments

[Frank Ovaitt]

My suggestion: don't even think about using the words "stories you'd actually be willing to pay for." Somebody somewhere will conclude that we believe it's okay to do so.

[Kami Huyse]

Pretty good, though there a lot of overlap on these. Just a few edits:

We agree...

1. to use accepted statistical models and to be transparent about our methodologies

2. to measure outcomes whenever possible

3. to avoid multipliers and false statistics that inflate results

4. to avoid the use of AVEs, and if they must be used to discount negative stories, stories that do not contain key messages, and stories that do not mention the brand in the headline or top 20% of the story

[Richard Bailey]

That's all very clear except for the grammar in point three where there's an accidental double negative.

I take it you don't much like AVEs...