Tell us what you think of the new afaqs! design
Ian's being crafted from a first-
thought into something good.
During various client meetings and industry peer interactions, I have come across them saying, "I have to somehow manage to touch this figure (Rs 5 crore, Rs 7 crore…irrespective). I got this target from the marketing team for this year. My PR agency and I will have to manage it somehow."
Some refer to it as EAVs (Equivalent Advertising Value); some reorganize it as AEVs. But this three-letter acronym holds a large story, which only signals gloom and the point of no return for the PR industry.
 |
It is amazing that every single organization, marketing/media savvy or not, continues to believe that the only metrics to prove the effectiveness of PR is to: look at the space occupied in each of the mediums -- TV (secondages), print (cubic cm or sq cm) -- and then put an ad rate card monetary multiplier to it. Voila. What you get is Equivalent Advertising Value.
Agreed, there are a few who have started attempting to move away from this, but you don't need all your fingers to count them across each sector. To make things worse, far from questioning this, I see communication consultancies and their clients discussing and arguing about applying the right ad rate.
The dynamics behind this seem more of a cultural issue than anything deliberate. Especially when, most of the "cultures" that surround our lives are something that has just been there and followed for ages, unquestioned. So, why should there be an exception in the case of marketing culture or PR?
Needless to explain, PR as a function of (corporate and marketing) communication is, in turn, linked to the larger desk called marketing. Second, even today, for nine out of ten people, marketing (communications) generally equals advertising.
Talks and live, real-life examples from global and our own domestic markets, sometimes under our very nose, are not powerful enough to make a person stop and introspect on the current scheme of things in corporate and marketing communications.
However, to be fair, the finger should not be pointed at that man designing and implementing marketing ideas. Guess he is too indifferent; or probably does not even have the energy or perspective to realize that this long-standing way of looking at marketing can be changed. Or, that this years-old tradition can be challenged for the brand's benefit.
Even today, not more than 2 per cent of a company's overall marketing communications (advertising) budget gets allocated for PR. Why should it be such a meagre figure? Why has this approach not changed over the last several years?
One of the core reasons is that PR is still not looked at as an integral part of integrated marketing communications. It continues to be a cosmetic vanity kit.
It is time marketing clients and their PR agencies understand that Ad Value Equivalent computations carry no meaning. It does not bring any value towards their set marketing objectives. It is simply a wrong way of calculating the ROI of your 2 per cent PR budget outlay. If that is the case, the marketing company may have been better off not spending that money at all.
Is it really justified to evaluate/appraise PR agencies' and client's internal PR/corporate communications head basis the EAVs they have delivered? What is the rationale behind setting new EAV targets for the PR Agencies and PR heads of companies, basis the amount of marketing/advertising budget that the company has decided to expend?
No wonder then, the corporate communications team and the appointed PR consultancy have hardly ever been interested in looking at messaging, which is, in reality, the first ingredient that builds brands or differentiation thereof.
Week on week, PR executives will be on the run. "Let brand building, perceptions, positioning, differentiation, recall building… take a walk. I don't need to bother myself with this. My boss is going to appraise me basis the space occupied and the EAV I have been able to generate for my client. So, I might as well spend time catching more journalists from publications and TV news channels and get them to cough up something editorial. Why should it matter what the content is?"
All this originates because the traditional culture of marketing still believes that only advertising can create and sustain brands. PR/editorial analysis is a "feel good" factor. PR has always been tactical and ad hoc, never strategic. That is probably why brand custodians think of throttling the success story of content-led marketing or PR marketing, with EAV calculation and self-gratification meetings.
If advertising communications can use matrices such as circulation, readership, or viewership, why should PR not do the same? Why have this differentiation, when we all know the consumer is consuming the same medium -- content/editorial (that is, unpaid) or advertising (paid). Why can't marketing clients set PR deliverables for their corporate communications/PR agencies that ride on the science of consumer numbers; and not on the monetary value of space occupied?
Because this is not being done, corporate communication teams and their PR agencies are still chasing space, nothing else.
Before and during every review meeting, agencies live a lifetime of palpitations; so does the corporate communications head. Justifiably so, because the marketing machinery is not going to question them on the basis of aspects such as change in image/perception within consumers, recall, consideration, reduction in consumer complaints, quality and quantity of talent querying for jobs, talent retention, scrip price changes or many more such variables. Instead, they will be questioned and appraised on the basis of EAV they have been able to generate.
It is time that we stop looking at PR as a self-gratification tool. Irrespective of what the context is -- corporate & marketing communications, corporate affairs, investor relations, et al -- it is all about image and perceptions. It further extends to considerations and recall of the product or the corporate brand.
Marketing companies and their internal brand custodians -- brand managers, marketing heads, sales and distribution teams, et al -- can turn this around into an advantage. This will happen when they start acknowledging that the power of content/editorial led marketing push is slowly taking precedence over traditional marketing communications.
Second, there are endless research and measurement opportunities that can be customized and implemented to bring scientific evaluation matrices for each corporate communications team member, the marketing head and the team of brand managers, HR, or even the CEO and the top management.
The question is: who should move the cheese? PR agencies by far, have been default set to deliver what clients ask them to deliver. If that is the case, shouldn't clients (marketing companies) review, starting now, the deliverables they expect from their PR agencies?
Should marketing clients look beyond EAVs? Should they involve the corporate communications team that is more aligned with scientific marketing objectives and not EAV? Can annual targets be set basis objectives of each of the functional requirements across corporate, marketing and HR corridors?
Make a wish. The PR Industry is full of Aladins.
(The writer is business head, Eikona PR Measurement, and senior vice-president -- communications, TAM Media Research)
© 2010 afaqs!From Awanijesh Karan, Sat 27 Mar 2010 09:58:51 AM In time to come PR is going to play a very serious role in Indian Business Scenario and sign of this
already started appearing in sorts of market gap and will get more and more complicated
as messages of campaign get distorted out accumulation of several campaigns of different products
claiming against each others coupled with lack of descipline in putting across consumers and viewers.
Strategic importance of PR will increase in multifold direction in time to come.Already industry have
started understanding the significance of PR, in future marketing need to work in close association
with PR for better result out of their work to avoid so many topsy- turvy curb from virualities to
realities.
From vivek sood, Thu 03 Dec 2009 02:04:46 PM I have read the comments above . i am glad all PR practitioner think on the same line, but still EAV formula catches the fancy of client. The reason is satisfaction of reaching to the figure of crore Bigger and the best brands still asking for fair EAV from their PR agencies and setting the performance parameters. N doubt P is beyond the scope of advertising, but in the absence of clear cut ROI assumption s better than demeaning performance sheet. in fact Event industry tried and still trying to devise an ROI formula with the help on TAM but the hunt is still on.
From Chintan Buddhadev, Mon 16 Nov 2009 12:34:54 AM Hi all, The points raised are very valid, but as is the case always: Problems are easy to point but Solutions are never mentioned. I am a student at Symbiosis Institute of Media & Communications, specialising in Public Relations. I am working on a dissertation to understand the PR measurement tools. One of them that i came across was tracking the messaging in the coverage obtained, so if the key message is that Co. ABC is the top Co. in the field of packaging food in India, then is this message seen in the coverage for the client and if its seen then to what extend it has been seen. Kindly suggest any other practical measurement tools (if there are any). According to me the comparison to Ad rates is a way of proving the dependancy of PR on Advertising and if this continues then PR will never be given the respect as mentioned by Surekha and others. And as far as convincing the clients is concerned, well a PR agency has to be convincing enough to change the thinking of their clients, and if the matrix presented (PR centric) is convincing enough then the client will get convinced and use the matrix to impress his CEO and top level managers... :-)
From Sanjay Shrotriya, Sat 14 Nov 2009 06:19:55 PM Its quite myopic to calculate the PR value by just multiplying space occupied by the ad rates. There are lots of other subjective factors that should be taken in to account. Two plus two doesn't make four here. We need to be little more innocent..!!
From Prasun Peter, Sat 14 Nov 2009 05:42:03 PM The question is pertinent, the solution more so!
The problems with this situation, however, is -
** Agencies have either not graduated into a better solution, or do not want to implement a 'solution' which they would need to hard sell to their clients
** Clients need to understand the power of PR, and see the end result through a different perspective
Agencies
For many, the focus is on business acquisition (growth in revenues) with no focus on what the clients' end objectives actually are; or in terms of what value additions can be provided to the clients; or how can the client be educated to adopt an appraisal system that is robust, a better representation of the work done, and provides a direction to the future PR strategy (as viewed against the initial PR strategy discussed and finalized). AVE focuses on the present, but has no bearing on the future - is the strategy going in the right direction? Are we progressing towards creating the desired 'final' brand image for the company or the brand? Or are we just creating a noise about our client which is, in actual, not doing any good to the company or its image? These are questions that the agency should look at very seriously
Clients
Do we have a long term PR strategy? Do we understand the significance of PR? Are we according enough respect and time for the PR strategy? Is it a top management function for us, or is it just another tool / function? Is it an ad hoc tool or is it a strategy that is constantly reviewed for necessary course correction?
This is a catch 22 situation.
There is a need for clients who understand the true value of PR and are willing to drive the same in conjunction with the PR agency so that the power of the function can be properly harnessed.
The agencies have to take a proactive step in educating the clients on the futility of looking at the PR agency as just a coverage generating machine. The mutual relationship has to evolved from a short term (read maximum one year, with extensions later) to one that devises a long term strategy and roadmap to be employed by both the agency and the client, and then putting it into practice with regular (monthly, quarterly, half-yearly and yearly) reviews for course corrections as necessary.
But until that happens - God help the client and the agency!
From Krushna Mahapatra, Mon 09 Nov 2009 09:14:58 PM some of the points made by the author as well as the comments by Surekha seem to be correct to a greater extent...albeit mostly from a one-side viewpoint. If we do a reality check, many of us will agree that the scene is not that bad and is fast improving. We must accept that EAV or AVE whatever we call it, is actually the invention of our own PR agencies. Whether we accept it or not, many of the big names (agencies) in the field resort to EAV (even to clients completely unknown to the concept) to magnify their achievements before clients (be it with inclusion of irrelevant publications / media - almost non-existent w.r.t reach / circulation & effect). As per my experience with some of the leading PR agencies, it is easier to sensitize & convince most of the clients on qualitative output but many a agency bosses won't let EAV wand go at any cost. So....Change must start from within.......!!!
Completely agree with Surekha on the huge horizon of PR and the generalised perception of the industry - mostly b'coz of its highly fragmented aspect. Infact, the wider purview of PR certainly takes the industry to a new level of importance, respect & energy.
Now, coming to the aspect of PR being crushed under marketing burdens & expectations, this mostly happens in specific segments of business where PR is expected to do the marketing job i.e. directly impact sales. But, if we take into account a major section of manufacturing industry, heavy industries etc. the role of PR has always been broader & completely different. The requirements of clients and the evaluation in such cases mostly rest on the convincing capabilities of agencies. Agred that there are exceptions like clients perceiving PR agency as a magic wand for solution to all problems - even far far away from the PR purview & limits.
Finally, i also believe that PR is very much capable of supporting business growth like no other communication function can - provided it is given the due support, importance & empowerment.
From Visal, Mon 09 Nov 2009 05:25:39 PM It has become a practice calling every ‘Selling’ activity by a name ‘Marketing’.
In fact the fundas of marketing has almost vexed with the contemporary ideas
and practices on. Rest lies with the ‘scapegoat’. You can produce or brand whatever you want to sell and can hire an agency for processes like concept and media plan, execution etc. That is enough.
All the above activity is done with the only aim that to end up in pure sales. OK. But in the meantime, certain core elements like ‘brand differentiation and the value addition’ that the brand can extend are compromised blissfully for multiple reasons. When the results are sweet the agency behind may be just greeted and if it is reversing the whole effort is criticized and even expelled with no excuse. One thing is quite sure that all the analogous activity in advertising
or PR just cannot ‘lift the brand above others and assure you good returns’
every time. As every one knows any analytics is based on surveys/or sampling techniques
and hypothesis is the benchmark-analysis standpoint. Not a godly activity any way.
From ashwani singla, Mon 09 Nov 2009 02:45:12 PM visit www.impactmeasurement.co.in and EVA and AVEs would look like they belonged to the stone ages!!
From Sujata, Mon 09 Nov 2009 11:44:16 AM I think PR tracking and analysis products like the ones from Karma (carried in Mint I think) or Icirrus go some way in solving this issue for corporates. The question really is, are corporates willing to analyse their efforts on these metrics.
From Surekha Pillai, Mon 09 Nov 2009 11:07:07 AM The author raises pertinent points, but makes certain assumptions.
in the last agency i worked, we made every effort to resist AVE measurement for the simple reason that ours was the business of perception management and measuring outcome in column centimeters (or kilograms!) made no sense. even as an output measurement, there had to be qualitative assessment of news for which we developed an internal tool which took into consideration aspects such as messaging and media relevance. however, most clients were happy with that magic AVE number. in my opinion, the AVE mindset also stems from the age long tradition of corporate communications reporting to marketing who mostly understand only numbers. corporate communications should report to the CEO in any organisation.
PR is no longer considered just a "feel good factor" while many companies believe and acknowledge the strategic importance of PR, not many are willing to pay for it. it is proven by the fact that often the fee that a company pays an agency for pan india support is less than their corporate communications resource's salary! the industry is so fragmented ranging from a one-man show to multi-crore network, that i dont see this problem going away soon. with limited budgets, agencies are also constrained to come up with creative measurement solutions.
the matrices for PR cannot be based on the ad matrices (that model is inherently flawed in my opinion) as that again is based on the assumption that PR = media coverage. the scope for PR is far wider than that, it is also about stakeholder engagement, influencer management, crisis preparedness and diffusion, investor relations..media matrix if anything can only be a miniscule part of the overall measurement of PR. while agencies are nowhere close to realising the full potential of PR, that again is because most companies are not willing to pay for it. if one were to do an analysis of the quality of support extended by PR agencies to clients and benchmark it against the fee they get paid, you would see the difference. this is also the reason behind inexperienced freshers and ill-informed executives handling accounts in many agencies and ending up getting bashed by the media and clients alike!
finally, i hope no one sees me as an aladin! i think the industry has had enough of being treated like a magic wand and as the last resort for quick fix solutions. i see absolutely no reason why a PR agency should be treated differently from say a serious management consultancy. with the right support and empowerment, PR is capable of supporting business growth like no other communication function can.
