So let me ask you: is it better to generate a high volume of media coverage in a variety of sources, or to focus on fewer clips in highly targeted media? Is it better to have negative publicity than no publicity? Is corporate reputation driven more by good products and performance (even if no one hears about them?), or by news coverage of those facts? In other words, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?

These are some of the questions Dr. Don Stacks, Dr. David Michaelson and I wrestle with in our new white paper, “Exploring the Link Between Volume of Media Coverage & Business Outcomes,“ on the IPR Commission on PR Measurement & Evaluation website. This seems such an elementary concept, but apparently little is available in current literature with hard data. So, we looked at the effects of volume alone; tonality-qualified volume, and message-qualified volume in three case studies. Of course, there are many other variables, but these seemed to offer a good beginning point.

At the end of the day, it appears that “more IS better” if it is at least neutral-to-positive in tone, and more so if key messages truly resound with the targeted audience. On the other hand, negative news is NOT preferable to NO news; scoring a few key placements may NOT be enough; and “getting all five key messages out there” may not matter.

This is interesting, since there’s been a lot of focus in recent years on forgoing the old ‘thud factor’ in favor of fewer targeted placements, and to consider a campaign a success if your report card shows you scored a high percentage of stories with “all five key messages.” Certainly, our job in media relations is easier if we can get away with doing less for our clients, and if we can utilize measurement reports with soft “proof of performance” scores like — “gee whiz, 90% of my coverage uses all the key messages.” It looks good on paper, but do you know if that coverage really correlates to outcomes like sales, and if so, do you know which message really worked?

Don, David and I are tackling “share” of volume next in a follow-up to this paper, which should be even more enlightening. Anyway, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Be gentle!