It's one of those things you think you know, but you've probably never seen proven. Does pumping up the volume of media coverage really pump up the business?
A new paper published on the Institute for Public Relations' Web site (http://www.instituteforpr.org) has some answers. The paper,
by Angie Jeffrey (vice president, editorial research, VMS), David Michaelson (president, David Michaelson & Company), and Don Stacks (professor, University of Miami) is
entitled "Exploring the Link Between Volume of Media Coverage and Business Outcomes."
Methods of measuring the reach and impact of media relations efforts have grown more sophisticated and varied. Yet this field is like a natural history museum where all of the
species on display can also be seen in daily life.
Many practitioners still depend on the "thud factor," counting and stuffing clips into hefty binders to impress clients. As recently as 2003, a PR News survey
discovered that 84% of respondents cited clip counts as their main method of media measurement.
From there, some practitioners have moved on to measuring audience impressions - print circulation, broadcast gross impressions and Internet visits, with or without multipliers
to estimate pass-along rates. The authors of this paper cite research showing that, if you're trying to correlate media coverage to business results, audience impressions are 12%
more accurate than story counts.
Still more complex methods may rely on media value (if the same space or time were purchased) and indices incorporating factors like tone, accuracy and target-audience reach to
connect media coverage to mission accomplished. This has been shown to improve correlations to business results by another 12% over impressions, and almost 25% over story
counts.
In our living museum of methodologies, these authors have the advantage of an advanced linguistics program that can analyze huge numbers of digitized articles. They can draw on
new insights and three case studies to inform the work of media relations professionals.
The impact of pure volume.
Case 1: A healthcare organization sought to get women to see their doctors and ask about a mammogram. That was the desired outcome. They extensively publicized the importance
of mammograms for early detection of cancer in a campaign that included no paid media or other promotional activity. But did all that coverage matter?
Based on 47,000 articles that appeared over five quarters, the researchers were able to show that the desired business result unmistakably climbed and fell with the number of
articles. The correlation level was very high at .89 - on a scale where 1.0 would indicate perfect correlation.
This was a simple situation where the message itself was essentially factual and resonated with the media. There were no competitors trying to counter with their own messages
or introduce negatives. Real life is rarely so sweet.
Negative news volume: Is bad publicity better than no publicity? (It's not.)
Case 2: In January 2006, the American College of Chest Physicians said that cough medicines are ineffective at relieving coughs, though allergy medicines help due to their
drying effect. The news hit all the major TV broadcasts and most daily newspapers. Cough syrup sales dropped at an unprecedented rate, with the downward trend reversing only when
the negative coverage eased. The measurement metric for this study was tonality-qualified clips of several hundred stories.
Of course, one person's bad news may be another's good news. These same stories correlated to a 12% surge in physician visits for respiratory illnesses, and allergy medicine
sales soared. Whether tone is positive, negative or neutral, it appears volume links tightly with business results - though the desirability of those results may be another
matter.
Meaningful message delivery: A failure to communicate?
In the third case study, the product in question was a medicine for overactive bladder ("going and going..."), with prescription volume as the desired business outcome. Again,
the product was promoted solely through unpaid media.
An analysis of 3,000 articles showed a modest .51 correlation between coverage volume and prescription volume. A number like that suggests that volume alone won't produce
desired business results. But the link between coverage and prescriptions soared to .97 (near perfect correlation) when at least one key message made it into the story.
What are we to learn from this research?
First, if you don't define desired business outcomes in advance, you may not be doing much for the business no matter how many clips you can drop on the desk.
Second, you'd better consider negatives as well as positives if you want an accurate picture of the impact of media coverage on the business. If you don't see that clearly, how
can you manage it effectively?
And third, it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that message. You need to have messages crisply defined and work like crazy to get them accurately reflected in as many stories
as possible.
Contact:
Frank Ovaitt is president & CEO of the Institute for Public Relations. He can be reached at [email protected].