Reklam degeri ifadesi uygun olabilir bence. Cunku reklam harcamalari deyince reklam yapmak icin yapilan harcamalar akla geliyor. Ama burada reklamin sirkete kazandirdigi deger soz konusu.

Soyle bir hesaplamaya rasladim

Media Value =
(Seconds Exposure / 30) x (Audience/1000) x Cost Per Thousand x Weighting

For example, a colour photograph that appears in a lifestyle feature in a newspaper, is less than 1/4 page in size, has a neutral perception and the newspaper has a 1/4 page rate card value of £20,000 would generate £2,680 worth of media value.

Rate Card (£20,000) x Weighting for branded Colour photograph in a lifestyle feature (0.67) x Less than Quarter page (0.20) x Neutral Perception (1.00) = Media Value (£2,680)



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs 4 mins (2005-10-12 08:02:55 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Burada da AVE (Advertising Value Equivalent) nin eskide kaldigi ve yerine "media value" teriminin kullanilmasindan bahsediyor.

What is Media Value, and how does it relate to Ad Value Equivalency?

So, I have told you that “Media Value,” (our term for the old ad value
equivalency [AVE] metric that is in such disrepute) actually correlates 12.4%
better than impressions, and 25.6% better than Story Counts, when linking
competitive media coverage to business outcomes like sales.

Editor’s Note: AVE is calculated by measuring the column inches (print
media), or seconds (broadcast media) and multiplying these figures by the
respective medium's advertising rates (per inch or per second). The resulting
number is what it would have cost to place an advertisement of that size in
that medium. By assessing all of your media coverage in this way, and
aggregating all such calculations, you can assign an overall AVE to your
coverage within a certain time period.

Should I be drawn and quartered for this heresy? Not if you believe in hard
data. But there’s more to this story. First of all, the term “Media Value” does
not infer any kind of direct comparison between editorial and advertising in
terms of impact, because there is none.

Instead, we use Media Value to represent the market-driven price of the
space, or time, occupied by a story. Why is it more accurate? Because to
generate Media Value, you have to take into account the size or duration of a
story. And advertising costs account for three things, according to hardcore
advertising research bureaus: size of audience (because higher prices usually
mean higher reach); relative credibility of source (because higher prices
usually reflect more respectable, sought-after media); and the perceived
ability of that media source to affect an outcome (thus the highest priced
media may not always have the largest audience, but it will almost always
have the most influential audience for that market sector).

So, we do recommend using Media Value as a base metric for accuracy
reasons. From there, you need to make sure you are measuring only the
portions of the story that apply to your client; deduct negative coverage from
positive plus neutral; use audited, third-party data; and finally, use the
resulting metrics comparatively across time, against objectives or within the
Share of Discussion algorithm.

Finally, let me share some research on what we call our Media Prominence
Index. As illustrated in Case Study Three, we refined our own Media Value
metrics with both slant and prominence of client in story, and tested the
results on 200,000 clips and against client outcome data. The results were
the highest correlations we’ve seen yet between media coverage and sales.
You might consider developing an Index of your own by weighting positive and
high-prominence stories with additional value, and assigning negative
valuation to poor placements.

The bottom line? AVE, as practiced as an outcome measure in and of itself is
dead, but Media Value is not.

aşağıdaki sayfada yer alan tablodan ve hemen altındaki açıklamadan ben böyle anlıyorum. türkçe "reklam harcamaları" diye arayınca benzer kaynaklar var; "medya değeri" ise çok az sayıda kaynakta "haber değeri" anlamında kullanılmış, ki bana da onu çağrıştırıyor.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 hrs 40 mins (2005-10-12 12:38:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

kendime disagree, auspicee'ye teşekkür. ben zaten "harcama" olarak düşünüp yazmıştım. değil. "değeri" denebilir mi bilmiyorum. "reklam hacmi" olabilir. bir şey bulursam yazarım, şu anda kafadan ekliyorum.

self-explanatory