What is a magazine?
In his “From the Editor” column in the April 2010 issue of Popular Science, Mark Jannot tackles the subject of how well print media translates to the new digital formats like the iPad and the deeper issue of just what makes a magazine. After all, in today’s always-wired world of instant updates and interactive social websites, the very notion of a magazine that’s outdated as soon as it hits the presses has been challenged.
Writes Jannot, “Every time I summon up the vision of a paperless PopSci, my enthusiasm for the prospect inspires a certain horror among some readers, who write to let me know how betrayed they feel at the very notion of us migrating away from the pleasingly physical product that you’re holding in your hands.
“That said, I’ve been thinking a lot recently about what makes a magazine a magazine, and here’s my definition: A magazine is a periodically delivered package of stories carefully curated, written, and designed by an expert editorial staff centered on a topic of passionate interest for a group of readers.”
Jannot touches on two very important issues relating to the viability and importance of traditional printed magazines and journals in the 21st century. First, he mentions a “pleasingly physical product.” The psychological aspect of this cannot be understated. The arrival of a magazine, newspaper or trade journal often evokes the same feelings we experience when we open a gift package or see a mystery unveiled.
The cover of the publication hints at the wonders within. As we begin to proceed beyond the cover, it brings back memories of reading our favorite books or magazines from start to finish, whether they’re Hardy Boys novels or the latest issue of Seventeen, Forbes or Manufacturing Today. There is a very physical ritual involved in turning the pages, scanning the ads, and reading one’s favorite sections over and over.
The other key point that Jannot brings up is the notion of content. The Internet is full of seemingly authoritative content, much of which is unreliable because there are few filters or barriers to entry. Anyone with a PC and an opinion can look as professional as Reuters with the credibility of the New York Post. But when readers open a respected magazine or trade journal, they expect that what they read and see will be factual and accurate. There are high barriers to entry in the production of a publication, which generally leaves it in the hands of professionals, or as Jannot says, “carefully curated, written, and designed by an expert editorial staff.”
All of this suggests that due to the powerful psychological power of the printed word and our cultural tendencies to regard high-quality printed content as expert and factual, the era of the magazine, newspaper and trade publication is far from over. And that’s true. What remains to be seen is how to translate these powerful characteristics of print media to the digital stage. As Jannot says, “A glossy printed page is a great medium—I certainly don’t deny that. But for me, a full-color tablet redefines gloss completely.”
Determining ROI for media coverage
How does one measure the ROI of a media or public relations initiative?
Finding a solid answer to this question is not as easy as you’d think. Most of what you’ll find will either justify editorial coverage as “priceless” or claim that it has value that can’t be measured in the same way as the impact of a new piece of equipment or a more fuel-efficient delivery truck.
Still, where there’s a will, there’s a way. A Canadian industry group has come up with a comprehensive standard to judge ROI on media relations efforts: MR2P, the Media Relations Ratings Points system. Designed by the Canadian Public Relations Society‘s Measurement Committee, the program is described in a user manual available from the website:
The MRP (Media Relations Rating Points) system provides communications and marketing professionals with an easy-to-use tool that measures the effectiveness of any public relations campaign. The 10-point rating system can be used for any type of media coverage (i.e. print, TV, radio, online). The MRP system can also be used to measure crisis communications and unplanned media attention after the fact.
The primary objective of the MRP system is to create a standardized reporting mechanism that can be widely accepted and utilized with ease to measure coverage results. This system can be easily customized by Company or by project. MRP provides clear metrics to evaluate media coverage, track total impressions and cost per contact.
Each piece of media coverage is scored on a scale of one to 10. The first five points are for “tone” (with positive tone of the piece in question scoring higher), while the remaining five points are awarded for any of five criteria from a list, including such things as company or brand mention, use of a photo or image, a spokesperson quote, inclusion of the website, a call to action, and others. The total score of a media campaign is the average of the tone score plus the average of the criteria score.
Sounds impressive—but does the system really work? Canadian writer Ben Boudreau appeared satisfied with the system when he evaluated his own PR experiences as a finalist in a Canadian writing contest in 2007; he scored six out of 10 (60 percent). Brendan Hodgson blogs about his company’s use of MR2P when they rolled out a PR campaign for a large client. Their final score: 84 percent.
Hodgson was pleased with the performance, but only because the numbers matched what his clients told him: they were thrilled. My opinion? It’s great that there is a system to quantify PR and media campaign success and ROI. However, it is more important to meet the client’s expectations, whatever they may be. As Hodgson says of their expectations, “If this is how they define success, then run with it.”