A little bit of here and there and everywhere has led me to New Hampshire.
@ginidietrich Ha, I immediately wondered that too!
1 week, 6 days ago on The Spin Sucks Inquisition: Mitch Joel
What a great inquisition! Mitch was so gracious in agreeing to be a guest on the Radio Roundtable podcast back in 2010. I was giddy too!
I'm always so relieved to hear successful people say that they are introverted and shy. Networking situations terrify me, because I'm introverted when it comes to those setups too. I also agree with him on the RFP process, it is horrible.
It was definitely an interesting chat. As someone who most recently worked for a news/social monitoring firm, I bristled a bit at the suggestion that monitoring=surveillance. A lot has to do with intent, I believe. Monitoring your brand mentions is appropriate and as I noted, due diligence in this day and age. But the nuances of the topic that Eric brought up are very important to note, especially when it comes to doing searches on people.
Much to consider here.
4 weeks, 1 day ago on #measurePR Recap: Complying Socially with Eric Schwartzman
@ginidietrich The key for me here is that you have a goal for them to stop asking for it--I agree that it's a (very) tough situation. As far as "what's the harm"--for those who *don't* have as an objective weaning them off of AVE, the harm is perpetuation of a false metric, and a depressed jenzings. ;-)
I know I'm preaching to the choir here--and, as I pointed out there are other "vanity" metrics that I actually can see some use for...AVE is just so incredibly frustrating to me. I guess I'm still astonished that it still gets asked for at all, it's just so....made up. I mean, what if we started a metric that said an online article had the same value as a banner ad? I just can't wrap my mind around how it ever became legit!
1 month ago on Vanity Metrics in PR May Be a Necessary Evil
Okay, I've stewed on this all day.
There is, in my mind, a distinct difference between vanity metrics and stuff that is just made up.
Facebook followers, Twitter followers, etc. are vanity metrics. AVE, IMHO, is just made up. No one has ever, ever proven that a full page article has the same dollar value as a full page advertisement--at least not that I've ever come across (and how could you?). And, again, IMHO, the pass along multiplier is equally silly nonsense. AVE should die an ugly, horrible death, and it cannot happen too soon. It makes me all kinds of crazy to see people say "well, they ask for it so we provide it..." and then what? It perpetuates this cycle.
I see nothing wrong in providing hard numbers like followers if that makes people feel good. But assessing a dollar value is what they really want. The only answer is to make it totally uncool to provide AVE, and focus on where we can really demonstrate a real, bottom line, dollar value.
There are two tracks we can take: one, admit that some of this "stuff" just isn't legitimately measurable, but that it works. This will take a boatload of charm to pull off. The other track is to set up programs that have measurement built in from the outset. I think a lot of the reliance on vanity metrics and AVE is that both can be pulled up at any point in a PR program but REAL measurement takes planning, baseline assessment, etc.
It's going to take a shift in mindset in the industry to get over this hurdle. I don't think we get there anytime soon if we don't make it clear what is not okay (AVE. Not. Okay.).
This really is a burr under my saddle!