Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

Predicting the Next News Trends: The Advent of Intelligent Media Analysis

Cargando en…3

Eche un vistazo a continuación

1 de 58 Anuncio

Predicting the Next News Trends: The Advent of Intelligent Media Analysis

Descargar para leer sin conexión

Predicting the Next News Trends: The Advent of Intelligent Media Analysis - a presentation given by Angela Jeffrey, APR, Vice President Integrated Media for VMS, at the 2010 PRSA International Conference in Washington D.C.

Predicting the Next News Trends: The Advent of Intelligent Media Analysis - a presentation given by Angela Jeffrey, APR, Vice President Integrated Media for VMS, at the 2010 PRSA International Conference in Washington D.C.


Más Contenido Relacionado

Presentaciones para usted (20)

Similares a Predicting the Next News Trends: The Advent of Intelligent Media Analysis (20)


Más reciente (20)

Predicting the Next News Trends: The Advent of Intelligent Media Analysis

  1. 1. Predicting the Next News Trends: The Advent of Intelligent Media Analysis Angela Jeffrey, APR Vice President Integrated Media, VMS Member, IPR Commission on PR Measurement & Evaluation
  2. 2. The Power of “AND”  “We are in a world where it is not PR or advertising, not qualitative or quantitative, not traditional media or new media, but PR AND advertising, qualitative AND quantitative, traditional media AND new media.” Tom Collinger, Associate Dean of Medill’s Integrated Marketing Communications Program  AND is the future.  AND PR must lead the way.
  3. 3. Where We’re Heading 1. Discovering what you DO Know  Decisions to Make  News, Advertising, Social Media, Aggregated 2. Discovering what you Don’t Know  New Technologies 3. Making Sense of it  Net Positive & SHARE  Measuring Competitive News  Measuring Competitive Advertising  Measuring Competitive Social Media  An Integrated View
  4. 4. PART ONE: Discovering What You DO Know
  5. 5. Objectives & Definitions  It all starts with knowing what you need to measure! – See: “Using Public Relations Research to Drive Business Results” by Paine, Draper and Jeffrey.  Must also have a clear understanding of: – Outputs – what you put “out there;” the results of tactical efforts, such as clip counts, audience impressions, speeches given, etc. – Outtakes – whether or not anyone heard your message, understood it, changed their opinion and is considering a behavioral change. – Outcomes – bottom-line behavioral change, such as sales, stock price, employee retention, votes, etc.
  6. 6. Five-Step Monitoring & Measurement Process 1. Define audiences of importance to reach those goals, and prioritize. 2. Define organizational goals. 3. Set PR objectives against prioritized audiences that are specific and measurable. 4. Determine how you will monitor and measure each, with what tools, and benchmark. – Determine who/what to measure against (self or competitors) – Choose Output, Outtake and Outcome tools – Determine how you will link them! 5. Measure continuously, and adjust programs accordingly.
  7. 7. Proof of Performance OR Business Intelligence?  Proof of Performance - Compare against self: – Over time or against objectives – Good CYA measure; good for evaluating tactics – But … business results may not follow  Business Intelligence - Compare against competitors: – Correlate to business results (survey scores, leads, sales) – Not always what you hope to see! – Actionable, true business intelligence worthy of C-Suite
  8. 8. Monitoring Choices  Comprehensive – must get every clip – Traditional clipping services plus online to supplement – Use for proof-of-performance – Most expensive option  Sampling – don’t need every clip – Limit search to key media only, or use combination of comprehensive and sampling – Online aggregators are cheapest, but they miss a lot – Less expensive, so works better for large clip volumes needed in competitive analysis; national versus vertical – Statistically, can apply multiplier to sample  Best Bet: Combination of Both
  9. 9. Tools & Services  Do-it-Yourself or Full-Service? – Google Searches and Excel Spreadsheets – Extensive time commitment, but less out-of-pocket  Tools for Monitoring and/or Analysis – News: VMS, Vocus, CisionPoint, BurrellesLuce, Dow Jones Insight, CARMA, Echo – Social Media: Google and Google Alerts, BlogPulse, BuzzMetrics, Attensity360, Radian6, Visible Technologies. – Advertising: Competitrack, Nielsen Monitor-Plus, Kantar Media, VMS AdSight – Integrated: DIY Excel, VMS InSight 3 or Vantage  Pricing – Prices range dependent on comprehensiveness and complexity
  10. 10. PART TWO: Discovering What You Don’t Know
  11. 11. Discovering New Issues  Historically: Market research surveys needed  New Technologies: – Web-based focus groups and surveys – DIY Facebook likes, Twitter searches and retweets; bookmarks; votes; customer service feedback; internal surveys. Challenge: must aggregate the data yourself – Human-powered search – services work by sending a text message and getting a response from a human “guides.”
  12. 12. New Automated Technologies  New technologies (i.e. Autonomy) that enable you to bring in a fire-hose of data and instantaneously: – Cluster into visual representations – Identify issues and interrelationships – “Conceptual Search” to find more of the ‘same’ types of ideas.  Predicting news tomorrow! – What new trends am I seeing? Insights? – What can/should I do done differently? – Add terms into existing monitoring, and the cycle repeats.
  13. 13. Instant Discovery News & Social
  14. 14. Instant Discovery Advertising
  15. 15. Clustering Concepts & Connections
  16. 16. Clustering by Sentiment
  17. 17. Clustering Over Time
  18. 18. Conceptual – “More Like This”
  19. 19. Proactive Discovery Might Have …
  20. 20. … Prevented this with Some Speaker Training
  21. 21. PART THREE: Making Sense of it!
  22. 22. Importance of Competitive Analysis  Hundreds of studies have shown: – Measuring your own media footprint in isolation doesn’t always reveal correlations to outcomes …Measuring competitively almost always does!  “Share of Discussion, Voice or Social Media” - is “the quantity and quality of your footprint compared to that of your competitors.”  Quantity and Quality matter for all media types!  At a minimum, NET POSITIVE! – “Exploring the Link between SHARE of Media Coverage and Business Outcomes,”
  23. 23. 23 Correlation to Customer Preference Survey (thin blue line) is low without competitive analysis, but soars to .97 through Share of Discussion.
  24. 24. Measuring Competitive NEWS (Unpaid Media)
  25. 25. Qualitative Scoring of Clips  Tone – does the story leave you more positively inclined toward the company?  Messages Communicated – how well are your company’s key messages coming through versus those of your competitors? (Broad-bucket these for comparison);  Prominence – How high-up in the article is you company mentioned? Headline? Illustration? First 20%? Bottom 80%?  Dominance – How often is your brand mentioned? Is it exclusive, dominant, average or minor? Terms from KDPaine’s Measuring Public Relationships
  26. 26. Qualitative Scoring of Clips  Audience Reached – define Tier 1 and Tier 2 media lists in advance, according to likely reach; what % of coverage was in those media sources?  Sources Mentioned – company spokespeople? Industry analysts? Customers? User groups? Who is quoted and what do they say?  Article Type – Feature? Industry overview? Product review? Blurb?  Call to Action – How many articles include a specific URL, 800# or other call-to-action? Terms from KDPaine’s Measuring Public Relationships
  27. 27. Case Study - Are Qualitatives Enough? IPR Jack Felton Golden Ruler Award – Porter Novelli/VMS – correlations with no key message r = .51. With key messages r = .97. BUT – only TWO of the six messages were moving the needle!
  28. 28. Quantitative Scoring of Clips  To measure Quantity, which score is best? – Clip Counts – Audience Impressions – Media Costs • Major studies: Media Costs improve correlations up to 70% over Clip Counts and 32% over Impressions – Captures reputation, size and prominence. – “A New Paradigm: Weighted Media Costs” from IPR Commission – • BUT – Media Costs are confused with AVE, which is condemned as a measure of PR Value - “Barcelona Principles,”, so Impressions preferred.
  29. 29. Qualitative & Quantitative Indices  A single number comprising both quantitative and qualitative clip scores work well  “Media indices” correlate better with outcomes  Key is consistency for competitive analysis  Example: SCORECARD (Ketchum ROI Lab)
  30. 30. Ketchum ROI Lab: Weighting for Quality  Source Tier 1 or 2: 0-20 points  Tone: -15 to +15 points  Message 1: 0-10 points  Message 2: 0-10 points  Message 3: 0-10 points  Third party endorsement: 0-15 points  Headline, Photo: 0-20 points  TOTAL possible: 100 points  Theory behind it: 100 points would be a perfect story, so lower scores mean stories are less effective.  Multiply percentage of 100 points against Impressions or use “as is” for each clip.
  31. 31. Scoring “Net Positive” and “SoD”  If using Scorecard, Index works well for Share of Discussion.  If not, here’s a simple formula: – Capture competitive news coverage – Score Impressions and Tone – Add your Positive and Neutral together, and then subtract out your Negative. – Result is: Net Favorable Impressions  Divide each company’s Net Favorable by the total of all to get your Share.
  32. 32. Example: Share of Discussion Calculations Clients Total Impr. Positive Plus Neutral Impr. Negative Impr. Net Positive Impr. Share of Discussion Firm A 140,000 100,000 (40,000) 60,000 44.4% Firm B 250,000 150,000 (100,000) 50,000 37.0% Firm C 75,000 50,000 (25,000) 25,000 18.5% TOTALS: 465,000 300,000 (165,000) 135,000 100% 32
  33. 33. Share of Discussion against Survey Scores Plot sales, leads, web hits or survey scores on a chart with some time-lag behind SoD that reflects your sales cycle.
  34. 34. Easy Correlations Calculation!  Simple correlations can be pulled out of Excel using one of two commands: =CORREL or =PEARSON  Setup an Excel spreadsheet with your data tables where the first row is Share of Discussion, and the second is your business result. A B C D E F G 1 Time Period Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 2 SoD % 10.5 14.5 19.5 19.0 10.0 50.0 3 Leads 4 6 45 50 30 15  In an empty cell, enter the cell numbers of the starting and ending values in each row like this: =Correl(B2:G2,B3:G3)  Hit enter … and it returns a correlation of r = .547.
  35. 35. Measuring Competitive ADVERTISING
  36. 36. Importance of Competitive Analysis  Advertising must also do “competitive share” to correlate well to outcomes: • Share of Voice is common practice • Can use media spend or impressions in same formula as Share of Discussion with correlations to outcomes …  BUT - Ad folks aren’t any smarter than we are about measurement! • No factor for quality! • Are all ads equal?
  37. 37. One Approach: AdBenchmarkIndeX from ABX  3 million people viewing and scoring TV, radio, print and internet ads  Answering internet questionnaire  The Ad Index is a combination of 14 key variables, several of which include: – remembering the advertiser – presence of a benefit – presence of any call to action – ability of ad to improve opinion  Will send you variables if desired!
  38. 38. Examples of High and Low Scoring TV Ads Score = Score =
  39. 39. Examples of High and Low Scoring TV Ads Score = Score =
  40. 40. An “effective” ad scores at 100+. Huge disparity in effectiveness scores! Enormous Variation in Creative!
  41. 41. How To Weight Advertising Impressions  To estimate the impact of your advertising creative, create a survey with a scale: – An average ad worth the spend = 100 (100%) – A superb ad would be about 150% – A relatively poor ad would be 50%. – You can use values in between.  Take total impressions earned for your ad  Multiply your impressions times your creative index percentage.  Result = weighted impressions for advertising – Example: • Impressions = 100,000 • Creative Score = 82 • Effective Impressions = 82,000
  42. 42. Measuring Competitive SOCIAL MEDIA
  43. 43. Several New Points from AMEC & IPR  SHARE is critical here, too!  Measuring Quantatively: – Basic data is easy to measure, but not terribly valuable: • Number of: blog/video/content posts, Facebook posts, Tweets, Facebook likes, Twitter followers, comments, linkbacks, likes, retweets, unique visits/visitors, time spent on site/content …  Source: Post-Barcelona Social Media Task Force, AMEC;  Great book – Social Media Metrics by Jim Sterne
  44. 44. Several New Points from AMEC & IPR  Measuring Qualitatively: – % accuracy/consistency of messaging – % favorable (positive, negative, neutral, mixed) – % of endorsement/opinion/advocacy/call to action – % of dislikes/badvocates – % change in volume – % share of conversation (overall or by topic) – Trend analysis over time … and more  Source: Post-Barcelona Social Media Task Force, AMEC;
  45. 45. At a Minimum …  For comparing cross-media, use: – Percentage Share of Net Positive Posts until better metrics are defined – Can correlate to outcomes (like Share of Discussion) – Can at least see directional relevance of Social Media to News and Advertising
  46. 46. An Integrated View!
  47. 47. Royal Caribbean Ad
  48. 48. Royal Caribbean News Story
  49. 49. Sales forecast (blue line) was off by 9.5% against actual (pink line). Green line shows how accurate the forecast would have been w/News and Social Media!
  50. 50. Impact of News and SM on Advertising!  News and Social Media changes ad effectiveness all the time, not only in extreme cases.  10-30% swing in how people feel about your brand over time.  Know the potential impact PR is having, up or down. – Budget increases, more power in crisis situations  Taking an “integrated look is essential” – Won’t see these effects if you’re not looking for them  Quick calculation to quantify this impact!
  51. 51. The Negative Effect of News  IF Taco Bell’s budget was $30 million for Gordita Crunch campaign: – Ads (pretest) scored 100; campaign spend was $30 million.  Crisis happens! – Ads (post-test) now score at 20, (20% of the original score) – the $30 million budget now has an impact only $6 million!  Marketing mix model with $6 million came close to matching actual customer counts and revenues!  Bottom line: News and social media reduced impact of the budget by $24 million!
  52. 52. DIY: Positive Impact of News  Have ad pre-testing service test ad effectiveness in a neutral news environment with a scoring system where 100 = an “effective” ad. – Example: your ad scores at 100 and budget is $10 million  Now conduct your PR campaign!  Have ad testing service repeat the ad effectiveness tests after your campaign: – Example: now the ad scores at 110 (10% higher!)  If the marketing spend is $10 million, PR has just added 10% more effectiveness to that campaign, or produced a real value of $1 million!
  53. 53. Integration Yields New Star!
  54. 54. DIY: Measuring Message Synergy!  Step One: – News: Net Positive Share of Discussion by Impressions and Message – Advertising: Share of Voice by Impressions and Message (assuming creative is good) – Social Media: Net Positive Share of Social by Post and Message.  Pull Excel chart comparing Share (of 100%) for each media type by Message  Is there message consistency and symmetry?
  55. 55. Comparing Messaging across All Mediums 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cancer Cardiology Endocrine Neurology Orthopedics Pediatrics Research Seattle Children's SoD Seattle Children's SoV Seattle Children's SoS 8% 18% 25% 23% 62% 15% 27% Seattle Children's is in Top 3 competitively in 11 of 17 categories based on integrated communications
  56. 56. For White Papers or More Information  The New Found Impact of PR on Advertising,” A VMS paper by Gary Getto, VP Integrated Media Research, VMS  “A New Paradigm for Media Analysis: Media Cost Weighting,” an IPR Commission paper by Angela Jeffrey, Dr. Brad Rawlins and Bruce Jeffries-Fox.  “Using Public Relations Research to Drive Business Results” an IPR Commission paper by Angela Jeffrey, Katie Paine, Pauline Draper  “Exploring the Link between SHARE of Media Coverage Volume and Business Outcomes,” an IPR Commission paper by Angela Jeffrey, Dr. David Michaelson and Dr. Don Stacks.  Email or Call 1-214-722-9006

Notas del editor

  • Now – before you even start, you need to make this very important decision: do you need to measure to show your hard work, or to see actual business results? Sometimes they dovetail, but not always.
  • Next – we need to decide whether we need every clip we can find, or if a sampling of most important media will do. (Note: best bet would mean you use traditional clip monitoring in your most important market areas, of for your top tier media, and defer to internet clipping for the rest).
  • DIY searches in Google; bring everything in; hit & miss, no way of knowing if you’re finding the right ‘new’ stuff. (If you are HP, very important to identify new ideas all the time. If small B2B, may not mattter as much.
    Our own comparative analysis suggests that most consulting companies are offering online groups at about 20% less than they would charge for face-to-face groups
  • Or through cluster mapping – which not only groups concepts together, but also shows you their relationship to each other based on how closely they are mapped.
  • You can even determine which of those clusters are positive or negative using automated “heat map” sentiment analysis for a quick overview … AND …
  • … even see a story morph over time and branch into sub-stories, so you can trace the origination and development of hotspots at a moment’s notice and take action at the core!
  • Because terminology is so similar, the concern is its as nuance that will get lost in most cases, so we’re taking the position they are the same even though they’re not.
  • Finally, what types of scoring really make the most sense? We’ll touch on some sticky wickets here, but hold on.
    The most common methods today for quantitative analysis are clip counts and impressions, but they don’t allow you to take into account the amount of space or time your firm actually ‘owns’ in a given story. New research shows that factoring in media costs improves correlations between media coverage and business results substantially for this reason, and many others. However, there is nothing “equivalent” about advertising costs and editorial when it comes to impact! So, if you choose to use media costs in your analysis, delete the dollar sign and simply use as a comparative index for correlations.
    Qualitative measures by themselves are too soft. A 2006 VMS/Porter Novelli study that won the IPR Jack Felton Golden Ruler Award showed that obtaining a high percentage of key message penetration does not necessarily yield good outcomes! You can find that study at, entitled “Exploring the Link Between Media Coverage and Business Outcomes.”
  • Click on black space on left. Plays American Airlines ad that scores 67.
    Click on black space on right. Plays Southwest ad that scorfes 126.
    Main factors are company awareness, clear and easy to understand benefit, better call to action (metric is actually no call to action so have to take the reverse) and ad’s ability to change opinion about advertiser (we take the difference between positive and negative opinions)
  • Same process, but print ads.
    Delta ad on left scores 110 versus American ad 82
    Delta ad is clean and simple. American ad does a poor job of identifying AA and the text is small and over a busy graphic
  • You can’t have high ROI without great creative and there are certainly a large number of very effective ads, but look at the huge variance between ads!
    This analysis was done by VMS using a variation of the proven Starch methodology. Using the VMS AdSight database of ad creative and a nationally projectable consumer panel we evaluated ads on the basis of likeability, brand recall, presence of a benefit, several measures of call to action, and change in advertiser perception. For this chart, a single index value was calculated but it can be calculated many different ways.
    The yellow line is the average of all ads tested and was indexed to 100%. In this analysis the mix of ads in the study had the same ratio as those captured by VMS’ AdSight platform, for example 43% print
    TV ads generally were above average, but about 60% of print were below average, most internet ads were below average, and all but one radio ad was below average.
    But in every category there were creatives that scored very well, so there is great room for improvement.
  • Just look at the positive impact PR has on advertising for Burger King! In this industry, an ad campaign is highly correlated to sales for the past 30 days. Here, we see that the ad buy (in turquoise) goes up from July to August, but then is flat in September, but sales (purple bars) continued to go up! What was behind this? A PR campaign (in yellow) on the Burger King Value meal actually increased the effectiveness of those ads so much, that the total integration (dark blue line) showed a correlation of .99 to sales! PR can have an impact of 20-30% on an ad campaign, so if you figure BK spent $20-$30 million a month, this means PR generated $4-$9 million dollars in ad effectiveness with a relatively modest investment.
  • Seattle Children’s has achieved a consistently high communications level using a mix of paid and earned media.
    Paid advertising in cardiology, neurology, orthopedics, and research increase overall communications share above what can be achieved by earned media alone.