May 2, 2005
Advertisers are less satisfied with the information available to plan and buy magazines than they are with the information available to plan and buy television. As a result they are less confident that they actually receive what they purchase. This skepticism not only acts to the detriment of our business, but has intensified as a result of misstatements of circulation by a very small minority of publishers.
A compelling argument can be made that the information available for print planning and buying is at least as good as that for television. While the relationship between circulation and audience is inherently complicated, the presence of both information streams allows each to serve as a check on the reasonableness of the other. Magazine audience information is much more detailed than that available for television, allowing for better targeting. MRI’s rigorously administered surveys use samples more than twice the size of Nielsen’s. Nonetheless, there are three ways in which the information currently available falls short of advertisers’ needs:
- Neither circulation nor audience data is timely
- Audience data
- Is not issue specific
- Makes it difficult to know when ad impressions are actually delivered
Information is available on program-specific audience delivery the day after a program airs. In contrast, magazines provide audience data for the “average issue” which is available twice yearly. While preliminary estimates of issue specific circulation are available in 6-month increments twice a year, it can take up to 18 months for these estimates to be verified by ABC. If an audit shows that an issue failed to make ratebase, it occurs so long after the fact as to be problematic. Accounts can be won and lost in the interim, and the accounting period impacted by the shortfall can be for two years earlier.
Television has its own measurement-related issues, but they have not inhibited the success of the medium. While Nielsen audience information is based on samples less than half the size of MRI’s and has substantially larger tolerances, the fact that it is both program-specific and timely – combined with its greater resultant utility – causes it to be perceived as superior to the audience data available for print. The ability to quickly estimate the reach delivered by the previous day’s programs offsets concerns regarding data quality.
Magazine advertising works. Yet in the absence of sophisticated measurement techniques, it is often difficult to see the relationship between impression delivery and sales effects. Unlike television where almost all of the impressions are delivered at a single moment in time, magazines generally take months to accumulate their full audiences. Marketing mix modeling is an important tool which can be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of magazines relative to other media, but it is dependent on precise information on impressions delivered by week.
Magazine publishers must find ways to provide advertisers with:
- Issue specific circulation data that is both credible and timely
- Information on issue specific audience delivery by week
Systems for delivering such information cannot be developed overnight, but until we begin a concerted effort to create metrics with greater utility and are willing to undertake a frank and detailed assessment of the value magazines provide their advertisers, print is destined to remain a secondary medium.
