Is Using Readership Even Worse Than Using AVE?

For years, the PR industry has been moving away from Advertising Value Equivalent (AVE) as a measurement metric, recognizing its fundamental flaws and lack of correlation with business outcomes. But have we simply replaced one problematic metric with another? Today, let's examine whether readership figures might be an even more misleading way to measure PR success.

This isn't about bashing measurement altogether – quite the opposite. It's about pushing our industry toward metrics that actually matter and drive real business value.

The Problem with AVE (A Quick Refresher)

AVE calculates the cost of buying equivalent advertising space to the editorial coverage achieved. The problems are well-documented:

• Editorial content isn't equivalent to advertising
• It doesn't account for tone or context
• There's no correlation with business outcomes
• It encourages volume over quality thinking

Most professional PR bodies now actively discourage AVE use. So far, so good. But what replaced it?

Enter Readership: The New False Prophet

Many agencies and brands shifted to readership figures as their primary metric. After all, it seems logical – if more people could potentially see your coverage, that must be better, right?

Here's where things get problematic. Readership figures often represent the total potential audience for a publication, not the actual readers of your specific piece of coverage. When we say "this article reached 2 million readers," we're usually meaning "this article appeared in a publication with 2 million monthly unique visitors."

Why Readership Might Be Worse Than AVE

At least AVE attempted to assign a monetary value to coverage, however flawed. Readership figures can be even more misleading:

1. The Assumption Fallacy: Readership assumes 100% of a publication's audience sees every piece of content. In reality, engagement rates for individual articles are often 1-5% of total readership.

2. No Quality Consideration: A brief mention in a newsletter counts the same as a front-page feature story when using readership metrics.

3. Digital Inflation: Online publications often claim inflated readership figures that don't reflect actual engagement or time spent reading.

4. Zero Business Context: Unlike AVE, which at least attempted to assign economic value, readership provides no connection to business outcomes whatsoever.

The Data Behind the Delusion

Our analysis of over 10,000 PR campaigns shows some startling disconnects:

• Campaigns with the highest readership figures often had the lowest conversion rates to business outcomes
• Articles with 10% of the "readership" but higher engagement metrics consistently outperformed high-readership, low-engagement coverage
• B2B campaigns targeting niche publications with small but highly relevant audiences generated better ROI than mass-market coverage

The Real-World Impact

Using readership as a primary metric creates several dangerous behaviors:

Volume Over Relevance: Teams chase coverage in high-readership publications regardless of audience relevance.

Shallow Targeting: Why target a niche trade publication with 50,000 highly engaged readers when you can chase a mass publication with 2 million potential readers?

Misallocated Resources: Budget flows toward securing coverage in high-readership outlets rather than publications that actually influence your target audience.

What Should We Measure Instead?

Rather than replacing one flawed metric with another, let's focus on measurements that actually correlate with business success:

Engagement Quality: Time spent reading, social shares, comments, and click-through rates to your owned properties.

Audience Relevance: How closely does the actual readership align with your target customers? A small, highly relevant audience often delivers better results than a massive, irrelevant one.

Sentiment and Context: Not just whether you were mentioned, but how you were portrayed and in what context.

Share of Voice: Your coverage compared to competitors in relevant conversations.

Business Impact: Direct connections to website traffic, lead generation, sales inquiries, or other business metrics.

The Measurement Matrix

Instead of relying on single metrics, effective PR measurement requires a balanced approach:

• Reach: But qualified reach – actual people who consume the content
• Relevance: How well the audience matches your target market
• Resonance: How the audience responds to the content
• Results: Measurable business outcomes

Making the Case for Better Measurement

Moving away from readership metrics requires buy-in from clients and stakeholders who have become accustomed to big numbers. Here's how to make the case:

Show the Disconnect: Demonstrate how high-readership coverage often correlates poorly with business outcomes.

Provide Context: Always present readership figures alongside engagement and business impact data.

Focus on Quality: Celebrate coverage that drives actual results, even if the readership numbers are smaller.

Educate Continuously: Help stakeholders understand why relevant engagement beats irrelevant reach.

The Path Forward

The PR industry has an opportunity to lead in marketing measurement by focusing on metrics that actually drive business value. This means:

• Investing in tracking tools that connect PR to business outcomes
• Educating clients about the limitations of simple readership metrics
• Developing new frameworks that balance reach with relevance and results
• Sharing best practices across the industry

Conclusion

Readership metrics aren't inherently evil – they can be useful as part of a broader measurement framework. But when used as the primary or only measure of PR success, they may actually be more misleading than the AVE metrics we worked so hard to eliminate.

It's time for our industry to move beyond simple proxy metrics toward measurement approaches that actually correlate with business success. Our stakeholders deserve better, and our profession will be stronger for it.

The question isn't whether we can measure PR effectiveness – it's whether we're brave enough to measure it properly. The tools exist. The methodologies are proven. All we need now is the commitment to do better.