Is a TV story better than an oped in a daily newspaper?
Or should you treat a big post on a popular blog as your version of winning the Super Bowl?
Public relations doesn't have a lot of science. It's an art. However, it's useful to know what works and what doesn't.
A study conducted by Microsoft in the United Kingdom provides some guidance. Researchers studied the effect of three different types of ads: print, internet and television.
What was the Return on Investment (ROI) for each medium?
For every one British pound spent:
*print ads returned 5 pounds in revenue
*Internet ads returned 3.4 pounds in revenue
*television ads returned 2.2 pounds in revenue
Science seems to clearly say that all three forms of advertising work -- but that newspaper and magazine ads are twice as effective as TV ads.
This study was highlighted by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA). Clearly, they're happy that a software company found that print ads are still more effective.
It's interesting that more money gets spent on TV ads, but print seems to give you more bang for the buck, and the Internet isn't far behind.
Print seems to be viewed more credibly than television. Clearly, stories and opeds seem are even credible than ads, which people know are trying to sell them something. That speaks well for the effectiveness of earned media, which is the heart of public relations.
But is that extra credibility wasted when stories and opeds don't directly ask people to do something?
It's an interesting question, and I'll look for research on the effect of stories on audiences in print, the Internet and television.