A colleague recently forwarded me this, and I have to say I'm a tad disappointed. Sensationalism aside, and I'm as guilty as anybody since I certainly don't have any real intention (in case you wondered) to strap on a mask and cape, but how can this kind of discussion be even remotely helpful to our industry?
Too lazy to click the link? Here's the gist...
PR Measurement Wars: Who's Winning?
With so many ways to measure media relations impact, who's got the winning formula?
Is the old measure of advertising equivalency on its way out, or is it stronger than ever? What about MRP (media relations rating points) and CPC (cost per contact)? Do either measure online impact? With so many sources of impact data and research, who are we to believe?
They're all here, so decide for yourself!
To suggest that one system of measurement is better than another simply doesn't make sense to me. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Campaigns are different. Objectives are different. Media targets are different. If MRP makes sense, do it. If CPC is the measure that speaks to the bean counters, do it. If it's hits to a website, downloads, leads generated, positive messages, increased share price, blog mentions, impressions, registrations, buzz (however you define that), or a combination of all of the above, then do it. Establish the objectives, set the benchmarks, identify the tactics and the metrics by which to measure and which satisfy the expectations of the client, then go for it...
Now before you go calling me a party pooper, I recognize that a degree of sensationalism drives registrations, and I don't deny the AMA the right to do what it needs to do to get bums in seats. But I worry that this trend toward putting one formula for measurement above another is less than helpful to the credibility of our industry. I hope the discussion itself will be more enlightening than the advertising for it.