A recent article on MediaDailyNews describing a report by Magazine Publishers of America, revealed an index comparing TV, online, radio, newspapers, and magazine advertising values. After an apparent shift in supported data there appears to be a new opinion and a new metric for successfully measuring these values. When Time/Ad Impact Ratio is applied to major consumer media it implies magazines carry more than twice the impact of TV, online, radio and even 
higher than traditional newspapers. While this appears to be an attempt to create a new metric supporting this thesis I discourage PR pros from giving this too much credence.
Using Ad Value Equivalency (Media Value) as a media measurement metric is a common PR practice, but not considered a best practice. BurrellesLuce counsels practitioners who are required to show AVE to use it as an index over time vs. a stand-along metric. If you currently provide AVE as a metric of media measurement, the “best practice” is to only use the portion of the article specific to your mention. While there are those who will immediately dismiss the relevance of AVE the reality is there are still executives demanding this evaluation. Realizing there is a certain amount of trust that must be built up before you can convert AVE advocates we want you to know you have a support system with BurrellesLuce. By using this as one metric in an index where you will likely see some correlation practitioners will ultimately be able to provide a more holistic (quantitative and qualitative) analysis to raise the profile of public relations.
While I don’t subscribe to the theory that magazine advertising is more credible I know I don’t want to go without my beloved glossy pages. I believe within the thinning pages of Time and Fortune lies some of the only remaining investigative reporting. The thought of being without magazines is ghastly as long as the “please discontinue use of all portable devices” rule is in effect on every flight.
Can you imagine waiting for your dentist, doctor or hair appointment without the companionship of magazines?
Dear Ms Burke,
I enjoyed your post, you made several excellent points.
My specific question is:
Why did the audience for classic American “news” magazines seem to die? I can remember when Time, Newsweek, and the US News Report were all vibrant, successful publications.
But if you pick up any one of them today they all seem to be thin, lifeless publications. (shadows of their former self’s)
BUT if you pick up a People, or an US magazine you can tell just tell “just by their heft” that they still are vital, well read publications.
Someone from the “hard news” industry might say, “Well the public has had their interest for hard news satiated by the 24 hours news channels. .
But doesn’t the entertainment news industry have the equivalent of a half dozen 24 hour channels dedicated to celebrity news. And aren’t their literally tens of thousands of gossip, entertainment and celebrity web sites. As well as tens of thousands of celebrity oriented blogs, and “U-all” tubers? Hasn’t cyber space literally become a “twitter” with all the celebrity gossip?
So (all things being equal) should I invest my money in a full page add in People, or Time magazine? And has there been a qualitative as well as quantitative shift in Time’s metrics?
And finaly, how do I reach the target audience that I use to reach by advertising in Time or News Week?
Sincerely,
Jackson Drake
I think you’re right to be skeptical of a survey sponsored by the magazine publishers in which they come out on top. I do, however, concur that coverage in magazines is the gold standard for those who focus on business-to-business marketing … and with paper papers (vs. electronic ones) struggling, the case for magazines is probably stronger than ever.
Bill Hiniker –
Thank you for the feedback. I both believe and hope magazines will not meet the same fate as many daily newspapers. The damage to the free press could already be irreparable and magazines are the light at the end of the tunnel.
Jackson Drake –
I really appreciate your feedback.
You bring up interesting points that have not escaped me personally. Being a subscriber to both Time and People I’ve noticed the media evolution and the economy have had a more significant “slimming effect” on Time compared to People. The “Time vs. People” paradigm effect is only in its infancy and I’m concerned about the maturation of such a trend.
The 24 hour news cycle is really a bit of a myth since if you look at either news or entertainment 24-hour channels you will see a lot of redundancy in programming and only about 30% per day is original. The biggest frustration I see is that news stations which have “24 hours” to fill continue to cover news in the traditional 2 minutes of surface for the majority of topics. Where’s the investigative journalism?!
The perfect world would have a “fair and balanced” view of “Brangelina” AND Fixing our economy. Until that happens, please don’t hold your breathe, I always suggest properly targeting your audience. Go where your constituents are to maximize your effort. If you are advertising for a $50.00 tube of lipstick People is the route for you vs. advertising for Microsoft Office products you should target Time.
I’m purely stunned considering the variety of press coverage celebrities get and reading the blog post on Magazine Ad Value Per Minute Study- Relevance or Selling Their Own Hype? BurrellesLuce Fresh Ideas just added to my overwelming. On one side everybody wants to know more, on the other side we realize it is their lives but not ours. Well, we all have the right to fantasize. For a daily stream on the hottest on celebrity rumor We browse through http://friendfeed.com/rodelscuebe and a few of them tend to be worth sharing.
Thank you
%NAME