Last week’s splash that Nielsen Media Research has agreed to share its coveted demographic measurement data with Porter Novelli generated substantially more buzz than your average industry revelation. Why? In announcing it, the agency trumpeted the magic words guaranteed to get the research folks in a tizzy: Holy Grail.
Last week’s splash that Nielsen Media Research has agreed to share
its coveted demographic measurement data with Porter Novelli generated
substantially more buzz than your average industry revelation. Why? In
announcing it, the agency trumpeted the magic words guaranteed to get
the research folks in a tizzy: Holy Grail.
Predictably, the industry got itself all a-twitter - a reaction as
inevitable and stale as the ’Holy Grail’ analogy itself. The drill is a
familiar one: PR industry needs better measurement tool, announcement
about new tool gets everyone excited, tool proves to be more sizzle than
steak.
Yet both PN and Nielsen hyped the arrangement with the zeal of eager
young Lancelots, leading some observers to believe that this one might
be different.
In theory, here’s how it works: Nielsen will provide complete
statistical breakdowns of its socioeconomic data to PN. The agency, in
turn, will use this information to plan new programs, tweak existing
ones and monitor success.
Most applauded the additions to the measurement mix of both an objective
criteria and a highly regarded player. The plaudits took the well-worn
’any new tool is good news’ tact. To wit: ’Any type of measured data
that a PR firm can gather is going to be valuable,’ says Rick Smith of
News USA, a media placement and distribution company. Adds Council of PR
firms prexy Jack Bergen, ’If what they’re trying to do is understand
audiences and what reaches them, that’s the key to strategic PR.’
Non-exclusive deal
Almost every party hailed PN for not making exclusivity a deal-breaker
in its negotiations with Nielsen. ’Exclusive measurements are bad,’ says
Bergen. ’They make it impossible to put an across-the-board analytical
tool together. An outside observer would say, ’There’s no unity here,
there’s no science here,’ ’
The problems that have prompted the search for measurement nirvana are
nothing new: criteria such as gross impressions and the unequivocally
nebulous notion of ’publicity’ don’t do enough to let agencies or
clients judge the success of a given PR campaign. While many firms base
the success of a marketing program on a quantifiable business objective
(such as increased stock price or sales), few of these programs are
PR-only, making it impossible to determine their full impact.
Clearly, there’s a lot to like about the PN/Nielsen agreement. The
industry obviously has nothing to lose by opening its arms to a company
of Nielsen’s stature. Additionally, just about any objective means of
measuring the influence of PR will likely be an improvement over the
primitive techniques currently being employed.
Still, several questions remain about the nuances of the PN/Nielsen
arrangement; specifically, about whether it is as far-reaching and
revolutionary as the two parties seem to believe.
First of all, why didn’t it happen any sooner? It is understandable, of
course, why Nielsen didn’t feel the need to approach PR firms: business
was good and, according to VP Clay Herrick, the company ’didn’t
understand the PR business. We didn’t know how they would use our
information.’ He’s not alone there - just another case of the industry
failing to educate others about its value.
Yet despite its dire need to find a reliable means of measurement, the
PR industry has never viewed Nielsen as a potential partner. Whether
this stems from feelings of inadequacy spurred by Nielsen’s tight ties
with advertisers and ad firms or controversy about the methodology and
its potential application is a moot point; PR never stepped up to the
plate.
What makes this even more baffling is that, in the interim, the industry
has essentially been trying to reinvent the wheel. As
Burson-Marsteller’s chief knowledge officer Leslie Gaines-Ross puts it,
’It’s a lot easier to find something that exists than to develop
something totally new and different, which is what a lot of people have
been trying to do for years.’
Limited scope
The limited scope of the agreement also raises some concerns. PN points
to the consumer and healthcare sectors, as well as to the firm’s
anti-tobacco and youth marketing efforts, as areas that will potentially
benefit from the influx of Nielsen data. This is hard to dispute, as
compiling information about the cable TV shows and networks (outside of
obvious targets like MTV) venerated by teens will clearly help PN find
the best placements for its clients.
But Nielsen confines its research to cable and broadcast outlets, which
occupy only a small corner of the PR placement universe. Additionally,
it’s difficult to imagine the relevance of Nielsen data for several
types of PR programs, such as business-to-business ones. And while
Porter Novelli speaks enthusiastically about using the information to
find the most admired TV performers within a given demographic, who will
then be hired as spokespeople for healthcare and pharmaceutical clients,
this scheme may be a bit simplistic, according to Ogilvy managing
director and head of research David Michaelson: ’Demographic information
doesn’t factor in the environment.’
Bergen, who used to head corporate communications at CBS, adds, ’The
Nielsen data only goes so far. It describes the demographic, but doesn’t
say whether the demographic is valuable. It’s a sledgehammer kind of
analysis.’
Finally, several sources question whether the Nielsen data is as
proprietary as PN - and Nielsen itself - seem to think. One firm claims
to have been securing the information through a sister advertising
company, while another says her agency regularly requests and receives
the information from the networks themselves. Does this in itself
devalue PN’s arrangement? Of course not. But if other agencies have
truly been using the information for years, their continuing quest for
measurement bliss essentially means that the Nielsen data has only
limited use.
Wait and see
As for whether other PR agencies will pursue similar agreements with
Nielsen, most seem to be taking a wait-and-see approach. Ogilvy’s
Michaelson says his firm would ’investigate’ a possible Nielsen
affiliation, and other industry players are similarly non-committal. ’If
they (PN and Nielsen) fall on their face, then we’ll all shake our heads
and say, ’The idea was flawed from the beginning,’ ’ one source quips.
’If they don’t, then we’ll all have handshake agreements with Nielsen
within a few weeks.’
In the end, perhaps the search for a measurement ’Holy Grail’ itself is
flawed. ’I don’t think that there’s one panacea for measurement,’ says
Peter Himler, head of Burson-Marsteller’s corporate practice. ’There are
lots of different ways to measure success: number of impressions,
product sales or stock price. In some cases, you just know a program is
successful. It’s often intuitive.’
That’s all well and good if you’re an industry insider. But if you’re,
say, an established company used to plowing most of your marketing
dollars into advertising, you’re going to want some concrete means of
determining that PR works. Hence the crusade continues. Hail to the new
pretender.
