Archive

Archive for January, 2010

Analysis is for illumination, not self-aggrandizement

January 18th, 2010 By: Brett Serjeantson Tweet This

I just finished a book called The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington.

I chose the book for enjoyment, not for work. Ironically, however, like most books I read, I can somehow apply what I read to my professional life.

I thought this book would be different. However, I was wrong.

What do spies have to do with media analysis or building an application to support such efforts?

Well, believe it or not, media people (entrepreneurs, journalists, and corporate communicators) made the best spies. Ian Fleming, author of the James Bond novels, was a journalist  for Reuters news service before he was recruited as a British spy. However, probably the most notable communications professional turned spy was David Ogilvy, the founder of Ogilvy & Mather, a worldwide advertising, marketing and public relations agency.

Before Ogilvy was recruited, he was heavily involved in Gallup’s Audience Research Institute.

Ogilvy was recruited to help the British leverage both polling and media data to help sway American sentiment towards supporting the Allied cause against Nazi aggression. To some, this might represent a misuse of data. However, the early part of WWII was a dark time and required desperate actions.

One of the quotes recited in the book and attributed to Ogilvy was: “I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

Ogilvy believed heavily in research and in fact, used his research skills to successfully convince the American people to support the war effort. He also used those research skills to make Ogilvy & Mather a household name and very successful agency.

Ogilvy was not telling people to ignore research data, he was telling people to use it properly.

This statement does not just extend to marketing executives, it also applies to professional communicators who like most of us, are too willing to use research data to make ourselves look good instead of using it to help make unbiased and sober business decisions.

Just as British intelligence could not afford bad information from its people, business can ill afford bad information from business communicators.

As Ogilvy so succinctly stated, research is for illumination, not for support. If the research soberly supports your point, so be it. However, too often information is abused and like the British and the world as whole during WWII, misrepresenting information would have had disastrous consequences.

Categories: Media Analysis Tags: 1 comment

AVEs – Steak or just a lot of sizzle?

January 13th, 2010 By: Claudine Wilson Tweet This

As usual in any community, debates are standard fare.  In the PR measurement community, two ongoing discussions centre around the use of advertising value equivalencies (AVEs) and the term ROI.  (More on the latter at a later date.)

Where AVEs are concerned, there seem to be two extreme views – they’re useless as effective measurement tools or they serve as a valuable evaluation methodology.

I, like many others I’m sure, tend to fall in the middle.

I believe AVEs can be very useful if they’re used to measure outputs, i.e., to evaluate the practitioner’s abilities and capabilities in attracting media attention. The information gathered also can help direct subsequent campaigns.

More importantly, perhaps, is that high AVEs can help justify publicity expenditures to organizational bean counters.  In other words, they produce a figure that can help budget holders see the value in spending money to garner media publicity.

One example of this is the space trip Guy Laliberté (Cirque de Soleil) launched (literally) in 2009, partially I’m sure for his own enjoyment but also to promote his One Drop Foundation, a nonprofit organization he created to increase awareness of the millions of people who don’t have access to clean water.

Was it worth the $35 million he spent on his own personal star trek?

He and many others, I believe, would say “yes.”

According to Montreal’s Influence Communication, the media coverage (television, Internet, radio, and newspaper) generated by his space visit  reached a media audience of 878.8 million people in 71 countries. Computed with no weighting or factoring, the AVE was valued at more than $592 million. Where the foundation is concerned, 92 per cent of the coverage was earned between Sept. 30 and Oct. 14 when his Poetic Social Mission in Space show was broadcast.

To a bean counter, this is the equivalent of a juicy porterhouse steak!  .

However, and here’s what puts me in the middle, while the measurement of the outputs show great value, what about the outcomes with target audiences?

Was there an increase in awareness of the foundation among key publics and stakeholders?  If so, did this awareness generate positive perceptions?  Did more potential donors and key opinion leaders engage with the foundation?  Did donations to the foundation increase?

If nothing happened back here on earth to benefit the foundation, the trip and that wonderful AVE add up to a lot of sizzle – but no steak.

Claudine Wilson is a senior associate with MediaMiser. This post was re-posted from her own blog, PRHunter, with permission.

Categories: Advertising, Trends Tags: 2 comments
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline