There may be no obvious replacement for AVEs, but that is not a problem, says David Rockland, CEO of Ketchum Pleon Change

We have a conundrum in the world of PR measurement. Last summer, we all gathered in Barcelona and agreed that using AVEs (Advertising Value Equivalents) is wrong. We answered the question of what to replace AVEs with by creating a series measures to use depending on what is the goal of the PR program. Three basic steps – set goals, pick the right metrics, measure them.

So, what’s the problem? AVEs are simple to use and cheap to buy. They give you a single answer, expressed in currency, of the value of the PR program. The fact that they assign the costs of buying advertising space as the value produced by PR seems to not matter to some who prefer a simple answer. However, using AVEs dumbs down measurement and gives a value for public relations that you may as well guess.

Is there a simple solution that is correct in assigning a value to PR? Probably not. PR is a complex field in that it is used for many purposes for many audiences. Therefore, it requires different metrics and different measurement depending on what one is trying to do. Why would it make any sense to use the same metric for a programme that raises awareness of a new product, as you would for a program to drive stock price or employee engagement?

So, if you want the value of your work determined, be ready to make a shift from a silly silver bullet to locating what is important and then measuring it. Some helpful hints:

Set goals before you do anything else – answer the who, what, when and how much questions about what you are trying to accomplish. And, have the conversation with the boss or client to make sure you are in alignment.

Use the valid metrics matrices that AMEC has produced and that are now being widely adopted across the industry. Go to www.amecorg.com to find them. Look through the charts – there is one for each type of communications programme and depending on your goals, you will find a box on the relevant grid with the metrics you should use.

Metrics fall into three buckets – outputs (media results), outcomes (audience changes) and business results (money).  Outputs – assign a scoring system based on the reach to your target audience, tone, prominence, message delivery, and inclusion of a recommendation or endorsement.  Outcomes – ask whether the company already does any kind of tracking survey. Most of the time, you can add two or three questions to such surveys and measure whether the PR programme is affecting audience change. Or, if such a survey does not exist, there are a variety of low-cost ways to do survey research that may be helpful.  Business results – these are estimated by marketing analytics approaches or through the same survey used for outcomes. Again, most companies have departments who measure what is driving their sales. Bringing PR into that mix is the aim and often more easily accomplished than what one would expect.

The Holy Grail of valuing PR was found a long time ago. We know how to measure the value of what we do. Now, we just have to get away from trying to find the next silver bullet to replace AVEs and instead use the metrics and measurement approaches that exist and will put a true value on the profession.

Want to be part of this industry change? Then join the attendees at the third annual European Measurement Summit in Lisbon, June 8-10. Last year’s Summit abolished AVEs as a PR valuation concept. This year we will explore how to get the industry away from searching for a simple silver bullet, bring the world of marketing analytics to public relations, and create an agenda for PR research and measurement for 2015. Go to www.amecorg.com for more information.