PR News
Kate Midttun

The number we all know is fake, but still put in the report

Somewhere in the GCC region, this month, a communications team is presenting results to a client. Slide after slide of coverage, and then the figure everyone has been waiting for: the AVE, or Advertising Value Equivalent.

A big number with a currency sign in front of it, built by measuring the space a story took up and pricing it as if the brand had bought an ad in exactly that spot. The client nods. The team exhales. And everyone in the room, if they are honest with themselves, knows the number is invented.

Why AVE still gets applause

I write this as someone whose agency has spent years winning AMEC awards, the global benchmark for measurement done properly. So this is not a note from the cheap seats. It is the opposite. I’ve grown tired of watching an industry I love keep score with a metric the rest of the world has already retired.

Here is the uncomfortable timeline. In 2010, AMEC, the global body for communications measurement, published the Barcelona Principles. The very first thing they said was to stop using AVEs. Not soften them. Stop.

That was fifteen years ago. The Principles have been revised three times since, most recently to version 4.0 in June 2025, and every single edition has had to repeat the same line, because we still have not listened.

Principle five, today, reads plainly: invalid measures like AVEs should not be used, measure outcome and impact instead. The fact that it still needs saying is the whole problem.

The habit that flatters everyone

So why does the Gulf, a region that genuinely wants to lead global communications, cling hardest to the one thing global communications agreed to bury?

Part of it is how we buy and sell the work. When agencies compete mostly on price and volume, a fat AVE is the easiest way to look like value for money. So we hand it over.

Part of it is training. A marketing director who has seen an AVE in every report for a decade will ask where it has gone the moment it disappears, and its absence feels like you are hiding something.

And part of it, the part nobody says out loud, is that the number flatters everyone in the room at once.

The agency looks effective. The manager looks justified in the spend. The client looks smart to their board. A metric that makes four people happy is very hard to kill, even when all four privately suspect it is nonsense.

Some teams still multiply the figure by three or five for "PR credibility," inventing value on top of invented value, and we all keep straight faces.

 

Agencies need to own their role

I want to be fair about where the fault sits, which means being unfair to my own side.

Agencies are complicit. We keep AVEs because they win pitches and pad reports, and then we blame the client for wanting them. We taught the client to want them. If we are serious about measurement in this region, that is where the honesty has to start, at our own end of the table.

Moving away from AVE

None of this is hard to fix. It is just uncomfortable, and comfort is what has kept the number alive.

Here is what it actually takes to move a client off it:

1. Start before the campaign, not after

Agree what the work is for while you can still shape it. Version 4.0 calls these SMARTER objectives, but strip the acronym away and it is four questions:

  • What should change

  • For whom

  • By when

  • How will we know

If nobody in the room can answer those, no metric invented afterwards will save the report. Most AVEs exist precisely because that conversation never happened.

2. Replace, do not just remove

You cannot take away a client's comfort number and hand them a lecture in its place. Give them something better to hold: whether your actual messages pulled through, your share of positive coverage among the audiences you were trying to reach, movement in perception, actions people took.

Outcomes, not centimetres of print.

3. Prove it small

Pick one campaign and measure it properly alongside the old way, just once. Show the client where the AVE said one thing, and the outcomes said another. You will almost always find a piece of coverage that scored huge on AVE and did nothing, and a quiet placement that moved the needle.

Let that gap make your argument for you. It is far more persuasive than anything you can say.

4. Name the trade honestly

Measuring properly costs time, and sometimes money. Say so. A client who understands they are paying for the truth instead of flattery will usually choose the truth, but only if you actually give them the choice. Most have never been offered it.

The region has the ambition, that has never been in doubt. We host some of the biggest campaigns in the world and we want to be judged among the best who do this work. You cannot claim that seat while reporting on a metric the rest of the profession threw out in 2010.

Winning awards taught me something simple and slightly deflating: the agencies that measure honestly are the ones that get braver over time, because they can finally see what works and what only looked like it did. The number that flatters you is the number that keeps you from getting better.

It is long past time we put it down.

Kate Midttun is Founder and Managing Director of Acorn Strategy, an Abu Dhabi-headquartered integrated communications consultancy with offices across the UAE, Australia, and the UK. Founded in 2010, Acorn has grown into a multi-award-winning firm serving sovereign wealth entities, energy giants, tech disruptors, and cultural institutions across the Middle East and beyond.

With over two decades advising multinationals and public sector organisations, Kate specialises in reputation, stakeholder trust, transformation communications, and AI integration. Acorn Strategy was named Independent Agency of the Year at the Australian Marketing Institute Awards in 2024, and Large Agency of the Year at the Middle East PR Association Awards in 2021. Kate serves as Governor of Future Communicators Foundation and Board Member of The Marketing Society.

Read more from our columnists in The Earned View 

Previous story

AMPR strengthens its architecture, design, and placemaking portfolio

Next story

Joseph Khong expands role at multinational pharma company

You might also enjoy

Telum
Industry update

Telum Media and Truescope in strategic partnership

Telum Media and Truescope have entered a strategic partnership that brings together Telum Media’s curated journalist and media relations platform with Truescope’s fully integrated AI-first media intelligence service.

The partnership will surface Truescope media intelligence inside the Telum Media platform, so communications teams can see which journalists are covering their issues and pitch them without leaving the workflow. 

Between them, the two companies now cover the five parts of media intelligence. Truescope brings media monitoring, social listening and media analysis. Telum Media brings the media database and distribution. For communications teams, that means one connected workflow, from finding the right journalist to measuring what the coverage achieved.

The partnership will initially focus on Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, with additional markets to follow.

For Telum Media, the partnership reflects a sharp surge in journalists demanding greater relevance in the outreach they receive from PRs, and follows its recent launch of Distribution tools within the platform.

“The ‘spray and pray’ approach to sending media releases should be consigned to the past – that’s what thousands of journalists have been telling us through our Journalist Interest Surveys,” said Telum Media Executive Chairman, Michael Webster.

“The focus is on precision-led targeting and more relevant outreach, and this partnership with Truescope will help communications teams identify and select relevant media based on demonstrated coverage and current editorial interests."

“Having this integrated into the Telum Media platform means teams can research, plan, personalise and pitch without switching between disconnected systems.”

For Truescope, the partnership follows its entry into the Australian market on 1 October 2026, and conversations with more than 30 communications, PR and public affairs leaders across Australian government, corporate and agency teams about what they need from a media intelligence service. Truescope monitors broadcast, print, digital and social media, and runs Truescope AI as part of the service: Truescope Assistant, which answers questions about what happened in the coverage, and Truescope Analyst, which explains what it means, with citations on every output.

Truescope CEO, John Croll, said the integration puts coverage data and journalist data in the same place. Truescope and Telum Media solve complementary parts of the PR workflow, and clients increasingly want monitoring and journalist intelligence to work together without compromising quality.

“PR and Comms teams want the best monitoring and the best journalist data. Until now that has meant two systems and a lot of copying between them.”

“With this partnership, a comms manager can access specialist capabilities, data quality, and innovation of both Truescope and Telum Media. They can see who is covering their issue, understand how that coverage is moving, and pitch the right journalist without leaving the workflow. That is time back, and a better hit rate”, John said.

Find out more about the Telum Media - Truescope partnership.

Sandpiper
Industry update

Sandpiper promotes senior leadership across APAC and the Middle East

Independent communications, public affairs, and research group, Sandpiper, has announced the promotion of three senior leaders.

Elizabeth Chu has been promoted to Managing Director, Financial Services and Managing Director, Singapore. She will oversee the growth of the financial services practice and take on broader regional leadership responsibilities. Elizabeth previously served as Deputy General Manager of Sandpiper Singapore before being appointed to lead the Singapore business in 2024.

Kimberley Spear has been appointed Managing Director, Financial and to the newly created role of Head of Employee Experience. Previously General Manager, Hong Kong, for five years, she will now oversee employee experience, including consultant development, and workplace culture.

Unice Liu has stepped into the newly created role of Head of Growth Markets. She will lead Sandpiper’s efforts in supporting organisations entering, expanding, and investing in growth markets, with a focus on risk management, reputation, and stakeholder engagement across Asia Pacific and the Middle East.

"Our success has been built on two pillars: exceptional people and an unwavering focus on delivering results for our clients,” said Emma Smith, CEO of Sandpiper Group.

”As organisations continue to invest in growth across Asia Pacific and the Middle East, they need advisers who combine local insight with regional reach, specialist expertise, and deep stakeholder understanding. These promotions reflect our commitment to investing in the next generation of our leaders who will help shape Sandpiper's future, strengthen our capabilities and continue delivering outstanding outcomes for our clients. Developing talent from within isn't just part of our culture; it's part of our DNA.”

(Pictured, from left: Elizabeth Chu, Kimberley Spear, and Unice Liu)

Interview:
Feature

Interview: Kevin Santos on Philippine financial communications

Financial communications is not merely about helping people understand financial services, but also about giving them reasons to trust the organisations behind them. As misinformation spreads and public narratives take shape faster, communications leaders face growing pressure to build credibility, position senior executives as trusted voices, and identify reputational risks before they escalate into crises.

Telum Media spoke with Kevin Santos, Group Head of Communications at Asialink Group of Companies, about communications challenges in the Philippine financial services sector, approaches to executive thought leadership, and what effective financial communications could look like in the years ahead.

In the Philippines, is the greater communications challenge helping people understand financial services, or helping them trust the organisations providing them? How do you balance accessibility, clarity and credibility when speaking to both business partners and consumers?

Trust becomes even more valuable for organisations to build and preserve as our world becomes riddled with synthetic media, mis- and disinformation, and increasingly subjective interpretations. In the context of financial services, approaches to financial literacy depend on standard variables: client profiles, products, geographic areas, income groups, and education levels.

Strictly from a communications perspective, the ‘greater’ challenge isn’t a choice between trust-building and fostering understanding per se, but rather whether the two are done synergistically, especially for Philippines-based companies operating at a larger scale.

Financial education, for instance, should already be a recurring part of an organisation’s customer journey, not merely a post-transaction add-on or corporate citizenship initiative.

On our end, we employ a proprietary process that genuinely makes it a point to get to know our clients and their businesses, and to help them understand our product offerings, rates, and terms. It does take time, but it lays the groundwork for building trust and understanding while contributing to sound risk management and sustainable portfolio performance.

When communicating to business partners and consumers, I would argue that achieving the balance between accessibility, clarity, and credibility starts with an organisation fundamentally knowing what it is, what it’s offering to the public, and what it stands for. I am a strong believer in contextualised communications; internal and external teams working on this will most often achieve their goals.

For us, it means regularly training our people to know our services and how to properly market them, building a verifiable track record of performance, and amplifying these results in a way that aligns with our collective values and is understandable across our linguistically diverse landscape.

From your experience supporting thought leadership communications for senior leaders, how do you decide who is the right person to speak on a financial topic, what they are best placed to speak about, and when it is better to hold back?

Amongst other frameworks and variables, I first advise and classify senior leaders based on their “ABCs”: advocacies, business expertise, and communications clarity. For me, it’s imperative to know what they care about, get a solid idea of their acumen, and understand how they engage people. I then determine their ideal placements based on where they sit in that living matrix.

Ultimately, nothing beats substance, expertise, and a sense of purpose. It’s much more productive and efficient to collaborate with a seasoned and tested leader capable of original thought, who can credibly draw from their experience, including lessons learnt and "what-could-have-beens" from their own leadership journey, along with a clear persistence in explaining how they or the organisation keep going.

The ‘communications’ part of this demands leaders be exposed to opportunities to hone or enhance these skills. From there, it’s a matter of ensuring the leader’s competencies match those opportunities, providing systems-based training, and, most importantly, ensuring that where thought leadership is shared leads to actual short- and long-term outcomes.

Preparation minimises pressure, including in the realm of thought leadership. I would advise holding back if both the communications professional and the thought leader haven’t completed the necessary prep work.

 

In financial communications, a crisis often starts as a trust issue before it becomes a media issue. What early signals should communications teams in the Philippines be watching for, and how should they respond before the narrative hardens?

Crisis leadership is a pillar of corporate governance. Shifting towards this thinking from a reactive or “hands-off” posture when handling crises will save organisations reputational currency and long-term market capitalisation.

While anticipating “sudden” crises, communications teams should be on the lookout for “smouldering” crises, and, where possible or needed, provide the tools for non-communications functions to discern what exactly those are. Those are long conversations, sometimes recurring, but much-needed ones.

Habitual social listening, including client sentiment scanning, is similarly critical. Particularly, and considering that what “viral” means now can change in the next few years, we add more weight to information velocity and sources rather than strictly numerical vanity metrics.

In financial services, there is no question that product sentiment is also a trust indicator and a signal. A company can build a narrative about their products, but if they do not align with what clients are saying, that will remain challenged, credibility will remain dampened, and it can easily become a media issue.

Apart from communications, the operations side of the business also needs to seriously consider reputational risks when developing a product.

Considering the current realities of AEO (answer engine optimisation), and the larger shift towards the use of LLMs (large language models) for brand research, narratives are quicker to harden. This makes it imperative for teams to exercise sound yet swift judgment when preventing or responding to a crisis. Before any of that, what I tell people is to build those trust signals before institutions come to collect.

What will define effective financial communications in the Philippines over the next few years - clearer financial education, stronger trust-building, better use of data, or more human storytelling?

Considering the VUCA world we live in, along with the synthetism brought in by AI, I am leaning towards stakeholder-centric, evidence-based traceability as a key indicator of effective financial communications locally; it will prevail in terms of building lasting trust, regardless of the business model.

On the client or consumer front, with attention spans declining and claims increasingly easy to verify or compare, effectiveness is also an exercise in originality, creativity, and providing value to the market, rather than your usual awareness-raising of one’s financial products or mere busyness and frequency in execution.

Financial literacy initiatives, for example, become much more meaningful if an organisation takes the time to track how effective said initiatives were and how they translated to communities. That’s a better story to tell in my opinion.

There is also an abundance of content, and we continue to move towards interest-based media and hyper-personalised digital realities. Aside from ensuring alignment with their organisations’ long-term goals, communications teams worth their salt, arguably, also bring real long-term value if their strategies can create conversations that go beyond traditional channels.