PR Evaluation

In the latest issue of PR Week (19.01.07) there is a feature on standardising evaluation. I definitely agree with this, it seems sensible to me to have an industry standard so we're all working to the same system and we can get an accurate evaluations of coverage.

At the beginning of this year we introduced a system of coverage evaluation for our clients which involves EAVs.

PR Week suggested that this method is falling out of favour - why is this? Perhaps you can't put a real price on PR coverage but it's often the case that paying clients like to see a monetary value put on the evaluation - so they can see exactly what their fee is worth!

At the same time we also monitor where our press releases are appearing / not appearing, so if one publication is not using them we can approach them and address the matter, therefore constantly improving our relationships with journalists.

It seems to me that EAVs are more concrete than the 'positive', 'neutral', 'negative' way of evaluating coverage, which is not always accurate - a cutting that is neutral to some could be seen as negative to others.

Has anyone else tried other ways of evaluation? Any recommendations?

Helen