Does Volume Matter?
10th January 2007 by Angie Jeffrey
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!
January 12th, 2007 at 12:43 am
[...] 1. Angie Jeffrey asks does volume matter when it comes to media coverage. The answer? Yes. She links to an interesting white paper on the IPR site too. [...]
January 16th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Volume looks good on paper but…so what? To your point, “…do you know if that coverage really correlates to outcomes likes sales…”
My favorite example: a colleague sent a short release to a particular reporter at the Arizona Republic (major daily) as well as to other reporters. The release described an upcoming lecture to be held at Arizona State University, an event that usually brings in about 25 people.
Only one story (clip) appeared. But about 200 people showed up for the lecture!!
The key: the colleague pitched the story to the right journalist who would be interested in a local attorney/amateur Egyptologist who was the second person to enter an unearthed tomb. The story was on the front page of the Sunday “Living” section and included two color photos.
Volume? No! Outcome? YES!
January 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
There is always the exception that proves the rule. The case cited by Ms. Matthews is not comparable to the cases that are in the paper and this comment should be read with caution.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Angie, thanks for a great study. Certainly a high volume of media coverage seems better when you’re affecting the attitudes and behaviors of a large audience about complex issues. The graphs in your study show how well changes in perception correlate to media exposure. That’s a significant business outcome.
The problem comes when people “count things,” like clips, which really have no relevance to a business outcome. It doesn’t matter how many times a story ran, so let’s not count that as a measure. It matters how you achieved your objectives, and in your study, volume helped achieve them.
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
January 31st, 2007 at 7:05 am
Merry - thanks for the kind words, and you make some good points. All of the studies showed that the coverage has to be at least neutral-to-favorable, and relatively on-message, to matter. If they are, then volume seems to impact outcomes quite nicely. But tonnage that is off-message is indeed a waste of time. Thanks for clarifying.
Wilma also makes a good point above. I’ve experienced some wonderful success through single story placements, too, that were in excellent locations reaching my target audience! But who is to say two stories of similar quality/target wouldn’t have had even more impact? The study simply suggests that ‘more is better’ or worse (depending upon tone) if placements are reasonably on target message-wise … (and, to Wilma’s point, all the more so if they are on target audience-wise.)
February 4th, 2007 at 6:45 am
In my experience, “volume” of coverage is an amplifier and so is important because it often equates with “visibility.” If the news is positive, high volume makes good news more visible and far-reaching. If the news is negative, low volumes of coverage helps to minimize any damage while high volumes amplify the negativity. So volume is not necessarily “good” or “bad:” there’s much more to it.
People experience a company or a brand in two ways: directly and indirectly. Direct experience comes in the forms of employment, stock-ownership, living in the same community as the company, etc. Indirect experience comes in a variety of forms but I would suggest that media coverage is among the most pervasive and most influential.
So let’s bring these two themes together: is there anyone reading this board who wouldn’t recognize a symbol consisting of a capital letter “E” positioned on the diagonal (yes, Enron). Now ask the people who recognize that symbol actually trade energy futures or worked for the company: relatively few given the company’s notoriety via the media. The symbol appeared in every broadcast and on every front page for months…all of it negative and all of it irreparably harmful. Smart companies know how to manage high visibility by having a strategy in place…Enron wasn’t one of them.
But beyond “volume,” there are other predictors of influence: the messages which are present and the attributes of the news item itself matter. So Wilma’s one news item might have been an informative article with her name in the headline, a photo, and all the necessary information to suggest that her lecture was the place to be.
Plain and simple: volume matters. It is not a stand-alone factor but it is important. What is more, “volume” cuts both ways — good and bad — and it can be managed.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Beautiful, Mark! Thank you for clarifying the concept so well.