Is it ever okay to use AVEs? - Thinking the unthinkable

I was reading this article on the BBC website about the value to sponsors of the Olympics and it led me to think a little about that horrid PR conundrum. Are there ever circumstances when the use of AVE is acceptable?

AVEs have loads of reasons for their non-use. I really don't want to rehash that list, but they are irrefutable and compelling. They are also the default measure for lazy PR folk. They are just complicated enough to allow the lazy types to explain the methodology to the layman and make them look clever, but not so complicated as to loose those same people.

However the world changed and they are now a bit like Babycham, deeply unfashionable, widely regarded as horrid. The transparency around AVEs methodology exposes their flaws making them easy to reject; end of discussion....

But I keep getting this pain...it nags away at me demanding satisfaction. Its a question...why won't AVEs just die?

If they won't go away are there circumstances then they might be considered as okay to use them? Arguably within the sponsorship industry they are still widely used as a measure of velocity (frequency & audience & scale). All sponsors coverage is positive (?) and progress is ink on page. I have major questions about applying same thoughts to the digital world. Also, (& this is where lazy PR can happen) if we say its okay to measure sponsorship coverage by default it is okay to measure other 'good news' stories - the creep begins!