“We need AVE” or “we need the impressions number”

…in my view, these two short statements are some of the worst phrases a measurement geek like myself can hear. This post isn’t about why AVE is rubbish – this is discussed countless times on the wonderful new AMEC web site but rather how is someone meant to engage with clients or colleagues who are demanding this number.

I have heard all the reasons why I should accommodate but mainly falls into two areas:

• The team are remunerated based on this score
• We have always done it this way so need a point of comparison

So what’s the answer? In our client-centric world we inherently try to please our stakeholders – is it such a catastrophe in doing it then? The answer of course is yes. However, the narrative cannot be so blunt. There are a few options in how to persuade the client that this is not the best route.

It encourages your communications team to do the wrong job

At best chasing a huge vanity number derived from impressions is a ridiculous metric – after all, how can you justifiably look someone in the face and say your campaign hit 78 billion people. At worse though, using AVE or impressions suggest that they only correct course of action for a campaign is one whose focus is on awareness. It pays little account into whether this is the right thing to do. If your objective is to change attitude or promote advocacy or purchase intent then anything that purely drives an increase in awareness runs counter to the tactics and metrics you would pick for other stages of the customer journey. For example, I would work with niche, trusted influencers if I wanted to alter attitude but high reach broader targets for awareness. If you are only using AVE or impressions, you could never pick communications tactics that help anything but awareness and if that is not your goal, then you are doing the wrong job – and that is a waste of money that nobody wants.

Of course, if this narrative is the stick, then pivoting the discussion is the carrot – “how can we pick the metrics that drive our objective?” I prefer this route as it’s less confrontational, but the purpose remains the same. In essence what this does is help drive the narrative from discussing outputs to outcomes – which is key to our job.

Provide a parallel alternative

I fully recognise that it’s easy for me to preach from my ivory tower about how you should never use AVE or impressions as KPIs. But what can you do if the above argument fails? I think it’s important what red lines you draw. For me, I will never use AVE but I would be happy to suggest running parallel metrics showing impressions alongside my recommended metrics that illustrate change in the customer journey alongside the most indicative KPIs for that space. My aim here, would be to show the client or stakeholder that the alternative approach still provides the success metrics they need. And if they want the historical examples, then I would be delighted to run historical benchmarks so they can have their comparative data points.

Looking ahead, we must be fully cognisant that many markets have entrenched views about what metrics are needed. Stamping your feet and saying “no to AVE” is not an answer. We must provide alternatives that clearly demonstrate how companies will be more effective by using these better measurement pathways.

Jonny Bentwood | Global Head of Data & Analytics

GOLIN