No matter how many times you have heard it – nor how much you want to believe it – there is no known research to support the claim that PR-generated media coverage is worth two or three times advertising.
The claim is usually attributed to supposedly greater credibility of news columns when compared to ads. David Michaelson, principal of David Michaelson & Company, LLC, and Don W. Stacks, a professor at the University of Miami, set out to establish some real knowledge on this subject. With funding from PRtrak, the two researchers compared the impact of editorial coverage, print advertising, web pages and radio advertising on factors relating to purchase decisions.
Specifically, they looked at consumer differences in message recall, credibility, product rating and interest. The experimental study involved a hypothetical product and students whose media use had been determined to be no different than that of the general population.
Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences between editorial and advertising on any variable. In particular, PR-generated coverage and print advertising enjoyed equal credibility, and both scored higher than web pages and radio advertising.
Should PR professionals be disappointed with this news? Not at all, say the researchers. First, the results suggest there is an advantage to delivering product messages through a variety of channels. Furthermore, with PR-generated publicity being the clear equivalent of advertising, it bolsters the argument for shifting more resources to public relations, which has traditionally operated with much smaller budgets.
Michaelson and Stacks are both members of the Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation, an initiative of the Institute for Public Relations. They plan to expand their research in this area during the coming year.
How Credible Is the Message?
Editorial coverage and print advertising are statistically equal, and both
are ahead of web pages and radio advertising, in terms of believability.
