Welcome to a post in which I’m going to tell you something you might not like: we can measure media coverage, but we can’t guarantee the results will be entirely accurate. Well, that’s a great start, isn’t it? Don’t worry. I’ll try to explain what exactly we can measure in a public relations campaign and how you should interpret the data in order to get the clearest possible idea of the real impact it’s having.
First and foremost, it’s important that we’re clear on what we want to measure and why it matters to us. There’s no single approach when it comes to evaluating media coverage. When we share a story or key message with journalists – whether via a press release or a one-to-one pitch – there are different aspects we can and should assess to determine whether the results are positive or whether we’ve fallen short of our targets. Let me break it down:
- If we want to know how far our messages are travelling…
Then we’ll want to measure reach. The key metric here is the number of media pieces that featured our information: news articles, features, radio clips, TV interviews. The focus here isn’t on quality, but on quantity.
- If we want to understand the actual impact our messages are having…
Then we need to know whether the messages were genuinely consumed and processed. Were the articles actually read? Were people paying attention when it was mentioned on TV?
Here, traditional media clipping metrics are less informative. Instead, we can learn more from data available on other channels. Social media interactions and mentions provide useful insight, as they suggest conscious engagement with the content and a willingness from the public to share or comment on it.
- If we want to achieve positive media impact…
Then it’s not about the number of mentions or the level of engagement — it’s about how journalists are framing the information we’ve shared. Are they speaking positively or negatively? Do they reflect our point of view, or challenge or reframe it? This brings us into the realm of sentiment analysis — the tone of media towards the brand.
Most media monitoring platforms offer a rough sentiment estimate based on the tone of the nouns and adjectives surrounding the monitored keyword (your brand or organisation).
It’s worth being critical of automatic methods — in the past, they could deviate by up to 40%. However, artificial intelligence is helping to reduce this margin of error. That’s assuming, of course, the system in use is correctly identifying what it’s supposed to measure.
- If we want to determine ROI (Return on Investment)…
Then we’ll need to refer to the well-known AVE – Advertising Value Equivalent. This metric has long been the go-to for justifying PR activity at board level. For those who aren’t communications professionals but are financially minded, giving an economic value to a campaign is a convincing way to prove its worth: we invested this much in our PR agency and achieved results that were three to five times that cost.
For traditional media, the calculation is based on the space or airtime occupied by the brand, compared to the rate card price of equivalent advertising. In digital media, things get trickier — we also have to factor in estimated website traffic. And, as you might expect, only the media outlet knows that figure, and they’re not going to share it for the sake of our reporting.
There are many angles to consider when evaluating media coverage. The traditional AVE method remains widespread, despite its flaws — after all, it’s based on assumptions rather than certainties. Even rate cards are merely starting points for negotiations, and in truth, organic media exposure is far more valuable than paid content.
Ultimately, the key is to identify what matters most to us, and focus on the metrics that reflect that value. And we must also accept that whatever we measure gives us an approximation of reality, not a perfect picture. Being able to interpret that data is where the real insight lies.
