Mags get on board with readership shake-up
Australia’s major magazine publishers have taken cautious steps towards joing the newspaper industry’s attempts to break Roy Morgan research’s hold on readership data.
In a statement, the MPA said:
“The members of Magazine Publishers of Australia have voted to participate in the readership review and tender development process recently initiated by The Newspaper Works.
“The magazine publishers will be involved in the various stages of print audience measurement review and call for submissions, in support of an enhanced set of readership metrics to serve the evolving needs of the industry.
Finally – it should be about circ and demographic, not where your masthead sits in the book when the Morgan researcher comes a-knocking …
Agree with philip Barker.
Circulation figures are real, readership figures are extremely dubious.
As a person who has been studying the circulation and readership figures for years, I have noted that circulation figures are sometimes higher then Morgan readership figures.
The problem with circulation is that it doesn’t bear any relationship to eyeballs, which is ultimately what advertisers want.
Should the paper sitting in my office count as 1 when there are a dozen people who read it every day? What about the copies that go un-read, especially local rags that go straight into the recycling bin?
Not saying the Morgan data is perfect, but readership as a concept is a far better measure.
I would say that rather than circulation or readership, advertisers want to know in which titles their ads will sell the most stuff.
Hopefully this is the start of a concerted journey to help uncover the commercial effectiveness of print media. All media need to know more about what they return to advertisers. For those that can invest and understand this more will come greater returns than those that settle for the status quo of the less than satisfactory current position.
I’m dubious about the integrity of Morgan’s figures for another reason – if a big publisher like ACP, who spends millions to have their publications on Roy Morgan’s list, brings out a new magazine, do we really think Roy Morgan is going to jeopardise those fees by giving it a poor rating? And yet many of the smaller independant mags can’t get on the list, because they can’t afford the fee.
I welcome a competitor, and hope their methodology is more transparent.
Chris, while I agree with what you are saying, I fear you are way ahead of most of the stakeholders involved in this process.
Yup, you are probably right Anonymous. At the same time, hopefully there is no issue with standing up ahead and waving to give an idea of where they should be heading.
circulation, readers per copy, cost per ‘000, et al are the traditional measurement tools utilised by both advertising buyers & sellers of Newspaper & Magazine advertising. whilst there is an arguement for change, which research methodology is superior?
at least the existing methodology (RMorgan Research) delivers comparable data, period x period, that accurately define TRENDS recorded over a considerable number of years – even if there is some discussion related to individual reporting events of circulation, readership, etc.
if change to the research method is instituted, there will be a considerable delay before TRENDS can be recognised! what lost opportunities will the industry bear ?
Some interesting and some rather bizarre comments here. Circulation and readership both have there place as measures of performance. They both measure different things. In general I think most people are comfortable with the readership method employed to measure print media. The position of the masthead in the book and ACP’s wallet will have little adverse effect on the figures, the estimates are relatively reliable and valid.
I think the issues here are around how well Roy Morgan measures “total audience”, by that I mean cross platform reach. This is the reason newspapers are driving change. They are embracing multiple delivery platforms for their content while the current method is only reliable at measuring the print platform. Magazines are less concerned as they have fewer multi-platform offerings and generate the vast majority of their audience through their print products.
I believe Newspapers want to see a measure of performance of a single brand across print, online and mobile platforms to deliver a portfolio reach which can also be broken down into the three constituent elements and sold against.
There is no disputing the need for advertising effectiveness and ROI studies but these are complex enough to administer for above the line advertising and media alone without being added to the audience measurement study.