Comments on: Will PR ever be free of the curse of AVEs?

By: James Fell

James Fell — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:53:27 +0000

I agree that there are defiantly limitations when using AVE's, and especially the widely used “PR Value”, however, with no real alternative it will continue to reign. It will be interesting to see how (or if) metrics will be developed to take into account the fast changing New Media environment to create a monetary value for stuff like UGC. I think that the problem facing the formulation of this is that value is very subjective (especially within Social Media) – what one person deems influential does not necessarily translate to others opinions. I think that personally that instead of a universal metric being created we will see agencies creating there own…

By: Paul Stallard

Paul Stallard — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:34:03 +0000

Superb post Stuart and sorry for the delay in leaving a comment. I totally agree with you that AVEs are a terrible way for evaluating a PR campaign. I have often found that the only clients interested in these are ones constantly looking for a way to justify their very existance rather than actually trying to achieve something.

Stephen Newton’s comment that effective evaluation depends on setting clear goals and agreeing how progress will be measured, from the start hits the nail on the head. A piece of coverage in The Sun read by none of the target audience will have a bigger rating using AVE than a two page spread in a trade title read by all the necessary decision makers you want to get in front of. What would a client rather achieve?

In my mind evaluating a campaign on AVEs is similar to evaluating based upon the number of press clippings achieved (regardless of where they are).

Surely if our industry is to lose the stigma of being “fluffy” then the powers that be should also take note and start evaluating the success of campaigns in a more realistic manner.

By: James Fell

James Fell — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:32:59 +0000

I agree that there are defiantly limitations when using AVE’s, and especially the widely used “PR Value”, however, with no real alternative it will continue to reign. It will be interesting to see how (or if) metrics will be developed to take into account the fast changing New Media environment to create a monetary value for stuff like UGC. I think that the problem facing the formulation of this is that value is very subjective (especially within Social Media) – what one person deems influential does not necessarily translate to others opinions. I think that personally that instead of a universal metric being created we will see agencies creating there own…

By: Craig McGill

Craig McGill — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:10:34 +0000

I think part of the problem is that for accountants, it’s a way of justifying the PR spend. They spend £4K a month and get £20K of coverage then it looks like a profit because they spent £4K and got material – which if taken as ads – would have cost £20K.

It’s not great, it’s definitely not scientific (people might not read the page) but for some it works.

It would be great though if the industry could get together and agree on good, common ROI standards that we could all use. If we all stood our ground – and the likes of COI issued guidelines on what they want for their ROI reports, perhaps that would help.

By: Stephen Newton

Stephen Newton — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:49:48 +0000

I don’t feel comfortable defending AVEs, as they are so crude, but there are limited circumstances where they are useful.

For example, lingerie firm Ultimo manage to secure a lot of coverage in the Daily Mail by supplying pics of celebrities modelling the product. The tactic works every time: Peaches Geldof, Jenni Falconer, Mel B.

This is unambitious PR that seeks to do no more than raise awareness of the product.

Here it may be legitimate to compare the cost of hiring a celebrity with the cost of buying a page in the Daily Mail.

Effective evaluation depends on setting clear goals and agreeing how progress will be measured, from the start.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:40:55 +0000

Personally I’ve never used them as a matrix, nor been asked to use them. I agree with your points about not being any use and there being better ways. However, I do think it is an interesting reference point for companies new to PR. In 7 years, I think I’m about to calculate something along the lines of AVE for the very first time. Why, the client understands PR has value, but cannot define value for himself. We will present normal, sensible matrices demonstrating success, but I have a deeply held suspicion that AVE will carry more meaning and weight for him. We’ll see!