On Saturday I secured an in-depth interview for Jane Pye from headhunting and executive recruitment practice Ashley Hoyle.

But the perennial PR question that comes up is: “What is the value of such coverage?”

The Guardian boasts:

• A circulation of near 350,000
• A readership of 1.2m
• A very high percentage of ABC1s – not sure what I come under, if indeed I do register as an ABC.  I could be a “q” or “r” if such demarcations exist.

Advertising rates hover around the £50 per square cm, but can go as high as £90.

I would assume that to advertise on a full page is about £20,000 – £25,000, perhaps.

Then as a PR I could argue that editorial is much more valuable than advertising, so times by….

But then again what really counts is how it raises and improves the profile of Ashley Hoyle – very hard to determine.

And then there is the bottom line question: “Did the client get any inquiries or did it make there job easier when approaching a candidate?”

Then, I pitch, show my work and get asked, after a “very impressive” response:  “What was the benefit to the client?”

Thanks to Leo Benedictus for a great article though – intelligent and witty.

PR is constantly having to justify itself and consequently is under pressure to deliver or rather prove a return. That is how it should be, to some extent, but it can be a difficult ask and the pressure is there to keep clients and to keep marketing money in the PR pot.

I came across one ridiculous claim by an associate of a PR agency that because a client was mentioned in a national that the entire page counted or that is how it seemingly worked. The estimate was the value of the page was over £150,000. However, the venue, which paid the PR money, was only to my perception mentioned in a line; the rest were images but nothing that gave the location away, being too close up. The celebrities used got £150,000 worth of value, if anyone. Did the client buy the PR patter?

Rick from Brazen PR estimates the value of editorial at 3:1 (for newspapers) or 4:1 (for magazines) if I remember rightly. This seems more reasonable.

Of course there is no definitive answer. However, I have been thinking that the value is what the client sees and what advertising value he would swap the PR for could be an accurate measure (although not without flaws).

Let me explain. I achieve coverage worth £10,000 (in a national) if paid for from an advertising budget. The editorial value is calculated at say £50,000.

Would the client accept £50,000 worth of advertising instead of my editorial achieved, after all editorial is more valuable?

How about £40,000 of advertising? Less? £25,000? Yes.

Then, surely the editorial in reality is worth that much as that is how much the client would pay for or swap it for.

Of course this is not perfect, but inflation of perceived value is not either.