Earned Media Value: Don’t Do It!

If you are using earned media value to show the impact of your PR program, please stop. It’s not a real metric, and it’s cutting corners.

Why this matters:

It’s not the right metric to quantify earned media measurement. It’s wrong. It’s flawed. There are other ways to measure the value of earned media.

I’ve never worked in earned media, but let me clarify. I am not an earned media strategist. I don’t know the media. I don’t know any journalists. I have never written a press release. I have never read a press release. But I’ve been building earned media measurement models for years.

I started my career as a direct marketer and have used data for the last 20+ years for various use cases. Today, I’ve applied these same principles to what I do with all kinds of analytics projects. As a result, I have a pretty good understanding of how to measure earned media.

But this post isn’t about me. It’s about measuring earned media value and why it’s not a smart thing to do. So, before discussing measuring earned media incorrectly, let’s quickly define it.

Earned media measurement evaluates and quantifies the impact of a brand’s media coverage. Instead of counting impressions or tracking hits, PR pros must adopt more comprehensive methods to demonstrate the business value generated from earned media placements. 

Showing the business value of earned media is crucial for PR professionals. Their efforts can translate into increased brand awareness, improved customer sentiment, and a stronger brand reputation. In addition, measuring earned media allows PR pros to identify trends, understand their audience’s perceptions, and create targeted strategies that address the evolving public opinion landscape.

The importance of earned media measurement cannot be overstated, particularly when considering its critical role in tracking a brand’s reputation. Companies that can effectively measure the impact of their earned media efforts are better positioned to safeguard and manage brand health.

There are several ways to measure earned media. The critical thing to remember is to use these earned media metrics to create a measurement framework:

Table: Summary of Alternative Ways to Measure PR

Incorporating these earned media metrics enables companies to gain a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of their campaigns. 

Mastering earned media measurement is critical for PR pros. It provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of PR campaigns and their impact on brand reputation. Companies can demonstrate the business value of their earned media efforts by going beyond simple impression counts and focusing on more in-depth methods like PR attribution and sales tracking. This understanding allows them to create targeted earned media programs that drive growth and reinforce their brand’s positive image.

One of the critical benefits of earned media is its credibility. When people share their thoughts and opinions about a brand or product, their views are seen as more authentic and trustworthy than paid ads. This is because they are not affiliated with the company, making their insights more genuine and honest. However, over the last several years, creator partnerships have blurred this line, causing debate about their effectiveness.

By leveraging earned media, you can establish a more credible and trustworthy reputation among your stakeholders. In addition, by taking the time to understand and measure this valuable resource, businesses can create more effective marketing strategies, ultimately resulting in greater success and profitability.

Earned media measurement can give you critical insights into your brand’s relevance with the media, reporters, and the general public. 

Advertising equivalent value is an earned media metric that attempts to quantify the value of PR by comparing it to what you would spend on advertising. The methodology is basic. You calculate what you would spend on paid media to reach the same audience that you have with your earned media coverage. This cost is then used as the value of the earned media.

For example, let’s say you get a mention in The New York Times, and the ad rate for a full-page ad in the paper is $250,00. So you would assign a value of $250,000 to the earned media mention.

Industry pros have heavily criticized the metric for years, and it’s not used as much as it used to be. Although some still use their “go-to” earned media metrics, I would not recommend it for many reasons I’ll explain later. Many proponents of Advertising Equivalent Value have shifted towards Earned Media Value (EMV).

Earned Media Value (EMV) is a metric used to determine the value of non-paid media coverage, such as news articles, social media mentions, and reviews. This type of coverage is called “earned media” because it is generated organically rather than purchased, as is advertising.

Each earned media placement is assigned a monetary value to calculate EMV. This value is determined by comparing advertising rates for similar placements in the same publication, channel, or program. In other words, the worth is determined by asking, “How much would it cost to run an ad in the same space as this earned media coverage?”

Paid search campaigns can sometimes be used as proxies to establish a benchmark for earned media. This means that the performance of a paid search campaign could be used to compare the worth of earned media placements.

Finally, Earned Media Value (EMV) is conceptually and mathematically similar to Advertising Equivalent Value (AEV). Another metric for estimating earned media value is AEV, which compares the cost of equivalent advertising placements. By using advertising rates as a common reference point, both EMV and AEV aim to quantify the impact of earned media.

Why is Earned Media Value Flawed?

There’s a reason why most PR pros don’t use earned media value to measure impact. Not only is it an outdated metric, but there are three main problems with using EMV to measure campaigns:

1. Earned Media Value focuses on outputs, not outcomes
2. Earned Media Value considers all coverage equally
3. Earned Media Value is highly subjective

Let’s take a closer look at each of these challenges.

Earned Media Value Focuses on Outputs, Not Outcomes

The biggest problem with EMV is that it focuses on outputs, not outcomes. Outputs are the number of placements you receive in earned media. Outcomes are the business results of your PR efforts.

For example, let’s say you’re trying to increase brand awareness of your company. Therefore, your campaign aims to reach as many people as possible with your message. In this case, output-based metrics like EMV might be a decent way to measure your program because the more placements you get, the more people will see your message.

However, if your goal is to increase sales among existing customers, output-based metrics like EMV won’t work. In this case, you must focus on outcome-based metrics like sales, conversions, or web traffic from earned media placements.

Earned Media Value Considers All Coverage Equally

Another problem with EMV is that it values all media coverage equally. This is a problem because we all know that coverage in The New York Times is not the same as in a local business outlet or a blog.

EMV also doesn’t differentiate between the types of coverage. Is it positive or negative? A media mention in a positive article is worth more than a mention in a negative one, but EMV doesn’t consider that. It also doesn’t differentiate between a headline mention, a pass-through mention, or a mention where you are mentioned and your competitors aren’t.

All media coverage is not created equal, and the EMV calculation doesn’t consider that in the formula.

Earned Media Value is Highly Subjective

Finally, EMV is highly subjective. This is because the value of each placement is determined by the person doing the calculation. And, as we all know, people are notoriously bad at estimating value. This means that the EMV of placement could be vastly different depending on who is doing the calculation. This subjectivity is compounded because there is no standard formula for calculating EMV. As a result, each person can (and will) use their method to determine a placement’s value.

So, what’s the bottom line? Earned Media Value is a flawed metric that should be avoided when measuring PR campaigns. Instead, if you’re looking for a way to measure your progress, focus on outcome-based metrics like sales or web traffic from earned media placements.

The Data Behind Earned Media Value is Also Flawed

Earned impressions are the standard data point in measuring both Advertising Equivalent Value and Earned Media Value. Most people calculate earned impressions using UVMs, which stands for unique visitors monthly. Media monitoring platforms have integrations with SimilarWeb, SEMrush, or other web analytics platforms that provide this data type.

However, the UVM media metric equates to web traffic at the domain level, not the article level. This means the article you secured is one of the thousands of web pages on that media site. I’m not sure how many people know this.

Let’s explore this further.

The below screenshot from SEMrush shows web traffic from Fortune.com being 2.6M total visits in March. UVMs are “unique” visitors, which will always be less than the total visits because one person can visit the website more than once.

To illustrate this point further, let’s assume you have a product launch and your agency secured media coverage on Fortune.com. They sent you a report that suggests your media coverage in Fortune generated 2.6M impressions. It may look good on a PowerPoint slide, and perhaps your CMO may pat your back for a “job well done.” But this is how impressions are calculated for both AVE and EMV, and it’s inaccurate.

Maybe now you can understand why this is a flawed metric.

Impressions aside, let’s look at this from a different perspective. I shouldn’t have to build or defend an argument that an article on the front page of the New York Times has more value than a full-site media buy.

If you agree, why would you compare a placement written by a trusted third-party source to that of a media buy? It doesn’t make sense to me because it diminishes the value and credibility of “earned media.”

There are media intelligence platforms today that give interesting brand data, though. Memo is a relatively new media measurement analytics platform that provides web analytics directly from the publisher’s websites. In other words, if you get coverage in Fortune, Memo will give you unique visitors, referral websites, scroll depth, and other metrics at the article level. Article readership is a massive step in measuring real earned media value.

The only challenge with Memo is that it can get costly, so it may not be ideal for smaller brands. Also, Memo only has partnerships with US media companies and is limited to only the more prominent media outlets.

Earned media value estimates the cost of achieving the same number of impressions through paid media.

For example, if a product launch generates 10 million earned media impressions, you’d need to determine what it would cost to buy those impressions through paid channels. If your media plan shows that 10 million display ad impressions cost $200,000, then the earned media value is $200,000. Some view this as cost savings, but it’s not that simple.

The biggest issue? It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Earned media comes from third-party sources, like journalists or influencers, while paid media is a direct transaction. Measuring them the same way doesn’t make sense.

Another challenge is how impressions are calculated. Many rely on web analytics tools like SimilarWeb or SEMrush, but these platforms estimate traffic at the domain level, not for individual articles. This means your numbers could be way off.

Even if impression data were accurate, the fundamental problem remains: earned media isn’t the same as paid media. That’s why I always advise PR pros to strengthen their marketing analytics skills. Instead of relying on earned media value, explore better ways to measure impact, especially when evaluating PR outreach.

For a deeper understanding of these concepts, refer to an earned media glossary that covers measurement best practices and alternative metrics.

FAQ