What is Newspaper Works really up to?
Fair to say, this week’s moves by Newspaper Works – the propaganda arm of the Australian newspaper industry – to take control of readership statistics may not have gone entirely as the organisation wished.
It did not tell Roy Morgan – which runs the current single source readership survey – until a few hours beforehand. But by the time the coverage was in the papers the next day, Roy Morgan was certainly being heard.
The coverage in the newspapers – even though they are the main funders of the body – has not been positive. Not least because Roy Morgan said it would not be tendering – meaning that rather than creating an improved industry currency that everbody could unite behind, we could end up with three: Roy Morgan, Nielsen and the Newspaper Works.
The Australian Financial Review said Roy Morgan has “poured scorn” on the plan. The company’s Gary Morgan told the AFR the reason Newspaper Works – which is funded by Australia’s newspaper companies – wants to take over is members’ self-interest. He said:
The readership methodology junkies out there (yes, that’s right – all seven of us) might be interested in a readership debate that raged recently in the UK:
http://www.newspaperinnovation.....hip-issue/
Basically, the UK equivalent of Morgan is the National Readership Survey. Free commuter newspaper thelondonpaper accused the NRS of “spilling their pint”
Quote from one of my counterparts at News International:
“We have objected about NRS methodology since our first inclusion on the NRS, as you correctly point out it is not conducive to reaching this young, affluent market through in-home interviewing, especially in London which has its own response issues”.
And after we give the newspaper industry control of the readership figures, maybe someone can give me King Herod’s phone number, because I’ve got some childminding that needs doing.
A few thought starters.
1. Would you want to be beholden to a system that determines your currency, and not know in detail how that data is derived? Wouldn’t you want to know how variations in one set of readership numbers to the next may have been affected by the sampling?
2. I think the time for “do we or don’t we” release sectional readership is long passed. I’d be surprised if the media buyers ageed to any change that didn’t include sectional readership.
I have always found it strange that Australia has never embraced JIC administered audience measurement currencies. In Australia most currencies are run by media owners or in the case of readership and Roy Morgan independently run.
It appears that the newspapers want the level of control enjoyed by the other media media owners.
This control will probably be dressed up as a desire for more accurate and transparent oversight of the supplier, however is most likely to manifest itself in the adoption of the research methodology that sheds newspapers in the best light.
There is no doubt there are issues with Roy Morgan and the methods it employs. These are no greater than any other readership currency around the world.
As a point of clarification. The reason an audience measurement survey is called a currency, is that it is an exceptable metric by which buyers (ad agencies) and sellers (media owners) can trade advertising space. This currency should ideally be delivered independently of both these groups by a supplier monitored, administered and funded by both. As we are informed this is A$3 billion industry. If I was an advertiser or media agency I would want an equal level of control and influence over the design and ownership of any new currency to ensure I am going to get value for my A$3 billion.
This whole debate has been notable for the absence of this involvement and is indicative of the parlous state of advertiser and media agencies research departments.
An interesting post ‘Researcher’. I agree with your sentiment regarding JICs, but I suspect that you are underselling the Australian market. The majority of ‘currencies’ are either JICs or MOCs. If the research is owned by a research company there tends to be a review committee. How do I know this? Because I represent the Media Federation of Australia (MFA) on all of them, as an independent research consultant.
Maybe you are a recent arrival to our shores, but I would like to clarify the status by industy, as follows:
* Metro TV. Owned by OzTAM (the commercial FTAs). Run by AGBNMR. MFA has member status on the Technical Committee and non-voting observer status on the OzTAM Board.
* Regional TV. Owned by RegTAM (the commercial FTAs). Run by AGBNMR. MFA has member status on the Technical Committee.
* Subscription TV. Owned by OzTAM – see the above for membership status.
* Radio. Owned and operated by Nielsen Media Research. MFA has membership status on the Research Committee.
* Online. No currency, but largest supplier is Nielsen Online. MFA has membership status on the Audience Measurement Committee and the Research Committee. These committees have been instrumental in the panel audit and is deeply involved in panel and meter improvements as well as developing a hybrid panel/server solution.
* Out-Of-Home. The MFA has membership status on the MOVE Technical Committee. The MFA was involved in the tender basis (specification and supplier selection) on an equal footing basis. The MFA continues to sit on the Technical Committee as we move towards launch in the back half of 2009 ensuring the site and visibility data is correct.
* Print/Press. The MFA is a member of the Audit Bureaux of Australia, and was an equal and instrumental partner on the committee that did the rewrite of the audit rules a few years ago. We were also instrumental in the recent ABA Online audit system.
This list does point to one ommission. Readership in Print/Press – because there is no technical committee or review process at the moment. If there was I am sure that the MFA would have a seat at the table and a strong voice. The MFA has also involved in discussions with the MPA and Newspaper Works over the past few years in order to get more frequent and granular readership and circulation data for Print/Press.
‘Researcher’, I think the moral of the story is that there is no absence of involvement. It is just that the MFA prefers to keep its involvement within the confines of the Boards and Committees that specify, design and monitor these ‘currencies’, rather than engaging in public debate through the media.
Does the MFA get an ‘equal level of control and influence’? The answer is – in some cases yes, in some cases no. But in ALL cases we have substantial influence, and generally at least proportionate or exceeding our share of the research bill. At the end of the day, someone has to own the data, and with that ownership goes the risk associated with underwriting multi-million dollar research contracts. The MFA is a not-for-profit industry body that simply is not constituted to take such massive financial risks. Therefore, we continue to, and will continue to remain active and vocal participants in the aforemetioned for fora.
‘Researcher, should you want further clarification, please feel free to look me up on the MFA website ( http://www.mediafederation.org.au/ ) under ‘About Us/Members’. If you happen to work at a media agency that is an MFA member I’d love to include you in our media research discussions. If you’re a media agency and not an MFA member, I would exhort you to join and “get with the strength”
Thanks for that John. There’s some very helpful background there, so I’ve posted it as a separate piece: https://staging.mumbrella.com.au/how-media-agencies-get-their-say-on-industry-currencies-6610
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Thanks for that John. I was looking for a response from the agency world and you delivered.
I am not sure if any of the media currencies you listed is actually run by a JIC in the true sense of the term. Ownership is with media owners with agency representatives invited to join administrative committees.
I do think without JIC’s the balance is out of kilter despite the work you do at the committees. The media owners like the Newspaper Works seem to drive fundamental currency change. At least with shared ownership you have an equal seat at the table and are able to drive change in your members and clients interest.
I appreciate your concern about the financial risk of creating a true JIC. This is the easy out, in reality most of this risk can easily be devolved to the research supplier.
Back to newspapers. The biggest mystery in this whole process has been the deafening silence of the magazine publishers. I cannot see how you can deliver a better quality research survey without the economies of scale of a single print currency.
In a world where we are seeking more understanding of audiences across media it seems bizarre to be splitting currencies apart. I am not sure whose interest this serves, certainly not advertisers. We will be left with two cheap and poorly funded currencies, madness.
My preference would be for a JIC but we have a situation here where we cannot even get the print industry media owners to work together.
This is not an email in support of Roy Morgan, please don’t confuse it for that. This is a call for an NRS (funded and owned by a true JIC) for both magazine and newspapers readship in Australia. This organisation should then issue an RFP for the supply of a readership research currency. Anything else is likely to end in an unmitigated shambles.
One point to bear in mind is that on the magazine front, News Magazines is one of the big three players. As News Ltd is also the biggest funder of Newspaper Works, it seems likely that this would be one vote out of the three for a new joint currency, conveniently a litle more under their control.
I’ll ask Pacific Magazines for their position. ACP’s corporate affairs staff don’t return calls, let alone answer press inquiries, so I won’t even waste my time asking them. Perhaps someone in a media agency could ask their rep though…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Roy Morgan have themselves to blame. If they’d come to the table, they’d have been able to head this one off. I predict we will NEVER see sectional readership figures now.
I think you may find Happy Shoppa that if the Newspaper Works appoints an alternate research supplier for newspaper readership then Roy Morgan may well release sectional readership data in an effort to undermine the new supplier, I would.
You may well also find the reason that Roy Morgan has not released more granular data on sectional readership has been driven by the newspaper publishers. It is likely this data has been captured on the survey but never publicly released to the market because after publisher consulation Roy Morgan have backed away from release.
Sectional readership has been captured and released on the NZ NRS for a number of years, even I believe released in R&F (the R&F may not be released). If I was an Agency planner who wanted a steer on sectional reading for an Aussie broadsheet I would take the data from the NZ Herald sections and model that onto The Age or SMH, it is likely to be a very accurate surrogate where the sections are aligned, which they mostly are.
To be honest you will find sectional readership adds no value for tabloids unless it is measuring an iserted magazine it is likely to be wildly inaccurate; unfortunately although they are labelled as sections readers do not identify them as such.
‘Researcher’, you are 100% that none are “true” JICs. A JIC is normally tripartite – the media owner, the media buyer and the advertiser – each with a third of the vote. A decade ago in Australia virtually all the currencies were ROCs (Researcher Owned Committees), so have have progresed to a majority being MOCs (Media Owned Committees) and hopefully will progress further to JICs (Joint Industry Committees) in at least some instances.
So what stumbling blocks are there to having true JICs? I see two.
The first is media owners accepting a situation where buyers and advertisers could collectively outvote them and they have no effective say in their currency – a natural fear I would argue. The reality is that unless all three parties agree on what the currency should be and how it should be collected, reported and financed, then such a currency is automattically second-rate.
The second is that traditionally the advertisers have made no direct financial contribution to any media currencies, using the logic that they pay the media agency and the media and that is how they contribute financially. I know, we could debate the merits and logic of this for ages. Suffice it to say that when the invoices go out, they go to media owners and media agencies only.
Personally, I am comfortable with not having ownership of the currency with the media agencies (shared or outright), as long as we are part of the committes that decide what those currencies should be. Heaven knows that research is already the second largest cost of a media agency generally representing around 10% of all costs.
My feel is that the MOC system has in the past few years served us well. If I may cite two examples. The first was the creation of MOVE. The MFA has been intrinsic to this process and championed the realisation that actually MEASURING every site’s audience was a forlorn hope, and that a hybrid of gross traffic measurement (vehicles, pedestrians, transit, shoppers, flyers) which is then broken down by ‘likelihood to see’ and ‘likely demographic’ based on other bespoke research was the way to go – a model that the US in now following. The second is the MFA’s work with the IAB and Nielsen Online. Accurate internet measurement is extremely hard – data is easy to collect and come by, but accurate measurement is scarce. The IAB and the researchers have been extremely open on showing the MFA everything it has asked for, and more importantly shown an extreme willingness to make things better – sometimes it’s more like “well what would you like us to do, what do you need us to do?”
But as you correctly point out, with The Newspaper Works recent RFP, there appears to be a rift between the newspaper publishers and the magazine publishers/MPA. It is important to note that even though Morgan currently conducts readership for both newspapers and magazines they use different methodologies – fundamentally because they are different media vehicles and should have bespoke measurement standards.
Sectional readership is a core requirement by the MFA, as are audience accumulation studies. I can guarantee that the MFA will be pushing for their inclusion in the tender specifications.
I agree it would be a great pity if this process was to end up with two second-rate services or two currencies – that is certainly not the outcome the MFA is after. An NRS is ideal, however no-one, including the MFA, has the power to force Morgan or any other research company to respond to the RFP, nor to force a currency onto another medium (in this case magazines).
The bottom line is that an RFP has been called, just by The Newspaper Works. The MFA will work within that framework to deliver improved accountability for the newspaper medium. If events transpire that magazines can be included as part of the process, then the MFA will urge that to happen.
I appreciate anyone and everyone’s feedback on this issue.
Me again ‘Researcher’.
You make very valid points re section – even to the point that I now think I may know who you are!
The issue on sectional readership (leaving aside that it has been collected in the past and not released) as I see it revolves around whether respondents can accurately identify/name sections. Debate centres around whether you ask for the section ‘brand’, such as ‘Drive’ or the more generic ‘automotive’. This is particularly relevant when you have a term like ‘finance’ which can mean different things to different people as well as appear in different sections of a newspaper. I think we will have to pilot test various versions. Any thoughts?
The biggest issues in constructing a reliable sectional reading question is limiting the number of sections you capture to those that are truly discrete and identifiable by respondents.
What a publisher may consider to be a section is not what a reader/respondent would consider to be one. As I said earlier sectional reading is a pointless exercise for tabloids, other than to measure news, sport and any inserted magazine (TV Guide). The other supposed tabloid sections only exist in the minds of the publishers.
For broadsheets which are physically sectioned with clear mastheads (brands) for their sections this process is easier to administer and the data is more reliable. Again limiting the number of sections to those more physically defined leads to more reliable results.
If you use showcards you can include mastheads or printed names or generics for the sections most will garner a similiar and reliable response. Recall is less of an issue as newspaper reading is predominantly habitualised rarely so infrequent to cause much confusion (apart from section name or masthead changes where both the old and new can be included on the survey for an agreed period).
A reliable method is to ask which days during the last week respondents have read a paper then show them a showcard for the sections in each days paper they have read. You can also show all of the sub sections/topics/ columnists within a section to jog memory or clarify which section it was in.
You can pilot but there is no point re-inventing the wheel, sectional reading is a commonplace readership metric in many markets. Find a couple of similar markets already doing this and pilot their approaches and come down on a prefered solution.
As always publishers (mainly editors) will be shocked at how low the sectional readership is and agencies will be shocked by how high.
The same problems will still persist, hard to get any ads early in news (always a premium) and sections like sport and international (world) virtually ad free despite strong sectional reading and quite affluent targeted audiences, go figure.