Point Oh!

Some recent talk on the blogs about developing an ad equivalence model for social media has really been rubbing me the wrong way. While on a fundamental level I believe PR and advertising have almost nothing to do with each other, the thing that really bothers me about ad equivalency is that it suggests that advertising value is the industry standard for marketing when, in reality, it is inflated and based on flawed metrics. While this belief may be held by some CMOs, this is really the root of why PR agencies have always been less successful than other marketing disciplines at showing the value of what they do and getting paid fairly for it. If you look at how SEO is sold by the few reputable companies that do it, the brand awareness value of organic search is proven through an excess of data and then the results are simply reported on.

John Bell at Ogilvy PR got the ball rolling with his post “The Next Evolution of Social Media” and, to his credit, he prefaced his case for ad equivalence with the following:

What we do is different than advertising. It is different than traditional, narrowly-defined PR. It is different than direct. But what we do – word of mouth marketing using social media methods – must be comparable to the more established disciplines or our programs won’t grow beyond enthusiast clients and “try-and-learn” scenarios.

He goes on to say that the key differences between social media marketing/WOM and advertising that need to measured more effectively are third party WOM activation, engagement and levels of trust.  In many ways, this really isn’t much different than showing the value of PR as whole, which also benefits from delivering messages through more trusted channels in more engaging ways (if you agree that editorial is more engaging than advertising).  I don’t think many will disagree with the need for better measurement in these areas but I don’t think this is necessarily a case for ad equivalency.

The problem lies in how advertising is valued.  In almost every sector but online we are seeing a leveling off or decrease in ad spending.  What’s happening is that marketers are finding out that not only is traditional advertising outdated but it’s downright ineffective for the budgets that are demanded.  Ad agencies are bloated beasts that have been adjusting to this trend by paying junior employees less to do more work and farming out as much as they can to the lowest bidders.  The result is poor advertising being placed in declining disposable media formats.  Oh, and no one is paying attention to them either.  The last thing that social media marketers need to do is get aboard that sinking ship.

Katie Paine, who writes the best blog in the world on PR measurement, was a little more direct than me in her assessment of the idea.  She says that ad equivalence is catering to “backward looking CMOs who don’t get it” and takes us a step in reverse to “screaming more loudly at more eyeballs” instead of focusing on the real value of what we do.

So what is the solution?

As I said a while back, the key to measuring online media and engagement is having a desired interaction and knowing how much that is worth to you.  With advertising it’s easy to let the market dictate pricing but, since this is a relatively new discipline and the media is extremely fractured, it’s up to the individual marketer to prove the value of their interaction.

Yes, this is more difficult and harder to sell to a 60-year-old CMO but reverting back to a flawed methodology doesn’t address the real problem and that is that PR agencies and small boutique shops aren’t doing a very good job of promoting the real value of this media.  There is a lot of preaching to the choir through blogging and twittering but people need to climb the marketing food chain and be vocal about all the aspects of this media that have tangible value instead of looking for a quick fix.