Ad agencies need to rethink their anti-magazine bias
Agencies and advertisers need to overcome their doom-mongering attitude towards magazines and rethink the role they play in the media mix, explains Magazine Networks’ Mary Ann Azer.
There’s currently an irrational bias against print magazines in the Australian market.
In the US and the UK, magazines attract around 5-6% of advertising spend, but here in Australia, the number is closer to 2-3%. This is despite the fact that the audience is still there.
In fact, more people read the Australian Women’s Weekly than watch some news and current affairs programs, with the latest EMMA readership figures showing a cross-platform audience of 1,920,000 for the title.
However, you wouldn’t know it based on the May SMI figures, which showed TV ad spend was almost $280 million compared to just $11.6 million for magazines.
I don’t think people doubt the power or value of magazine advertising, but parts of the sector haven’t helped themselves by removing their circulation auditing.
Similarly, we have to consider that many of the magazines are pretty plastered with ads, so it can be hard to stand out.
Then add in the fact that media agencies are pretty incentivised to push toward programmatic digital, and digital spend through the TV networks’ pre-rolls and associated sites.
Also don’t forget that some of the most popular magazines are also embarassing trash that most brands would be wary of being seen in.
From a creative perspective though, I think most agencies see value in magazine ads. They are strong opportunities for good creative, as long as there is financial value in the space.
Hmm… A one dimensional view?
Or just a dislike of a medium that has pulled out of independent auditing but still asks for client money without any hard sales figures on print…
More of the same. Magazines say we have heaps of readers, agencies imply no audit makes it harder to justify…both not really relevant.
When it was most crucial magazines forgot or didn’t know how to make themselves relevant to the argument.
If I want you to buy my car I know that if I’m not on your consideration set before you decide to start shopping I have to spend a bucket load in ads and discounts to get on. Same can be said for any brand/product even canned pineapple. Spend some money and time looking at passive versus active state influence and I know the clients listen.
The problem for advertisers is that print circulations have dropped but rates continue to climb to make up for the lack of cover revenue. Advertisers getting less for their buck. Trying to explain that advertisers are still getting value is an uphill battle
I’d suggest this may be true for general interest mags, but niche magazines on a specific subject should still retain readership.
Your argument to a degree also works on the old premise that adverts sell product; they don’t. Adverts pay for magazines to pay people to write articles and case studies and provide tutorials etc on the products that are being advertised.
Few seem to grasp this and every time I point it out to a marketing type, you can almost see a light globe go off above them.
Just.. no.
“as the number one medium consumers turn to for advice on brands and products, advertisers cannot afford to overlook magazines.”
By ‘Magazines’, do you mean google?
Exactly what I thought. Hilarious to say that people turn to magazines isnt it? (I bet there was a survey, cleverly constructed, by the magazines, which implies that magazines are the go to…)
1. Magazines have pulled from auditing which means no accountability.
2. We know for a fact readership is dropping but rates are increasing.
How can we comfortably invest in a medium which is over-priced and under-reported? The fact is if Magazine CPMs could come down to an acceptable level then we would invest in them, but at the moment, unless you’re a huge client with money to burn, why would you bother?
No one is questioning the effectiveness of print, but when you have to spend more to reach far less people, it just doesn’t balance out.
Hmm. Under that criteria, what media are you buying then? You (industry) started pulling money out of mags long before they stop paying for the audits no one cared about in the first place.
Or are you saying that if mags halved their page rate you’d buy more of them?