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.

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.)

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!

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!