At the recent PRSA T3 conference I sat on a panel discussing social media measurement and ROI with Shonali Burke. I presented some of the core things that Voce does for measurement as well as providing some real-world examples of what some of our clients look for in determining the success of a program.
One of the examples I gave was how we look at engagement with online video and compare that CPI with traditional media. During the Q&A I was asked if using the equivalency model to compare PR to advertising was the right model. Whether you like it or not you need to have some basis of comparison. With social media though, those comparisons are all over the place. You might compare elements of a program to advertising, or traditional PR, or even customer service. Going further down the rabbit hole, you look at things like: client acquisition, customer retention, employee retention, recruiting, to name just a few.
In any of the measures, the big focus is to determine which medium is performing more efficiently. It's also important to remember that all clients have different results that they value. Measurement is not a one-size-fits-all approach. However, the core data that you can track online is always the the same. It's how you analyze and compare that provides that measurement value.
Visitor Comments
I think that the word "equivalency" for many of us sends off all sorts of alarm bells because it has been misused and abused for so long by lazy PR people who think that if they count up the column inches they "place: they can come up with some sort of value for their press clippings.
What you are are suggesting, comparing the cost per message communicated, or engagement made is really an efficiency metric, not an "equivlency" metric, and if you drop the notion that anything is "equivalent" in our topsy turvey world, but accept the notion that we do need to know where we're getting the most bang for the buck, you'll get a lot less push back for your efforts. I think the key point is that you need to be accurate and valid in what you chose as a benchmark.
Posted by: KDPaine | July 1, 2009 9:16 AM
I think it's part efficiency and part equivalency.
Also part of the perspective is that I've mostly been focussed on online comms for my career and don't have the legacy issues with the word 'equivalency'.
However, as you point out it's probably not the best word to use with long-tenured PR folks.
Posted by: Josh Hallett | July 1, 2009 9:30 AM