For over 75 years,well before radio and television began the concept of media audiences,the driver of magazine distribution strategy has often been circulation guarantees to advertisers,particularly for national magazines.These guarantees,in turn,are used to determine the pricing of magazine advertising,which is,and will continue to be the industry's biggest revenue stream.Today,magazine advertising is still bought based on the number of copies in circulation.I believe that these circulation rate base guarantees are today's biggest single enemy of effective magazine subion direct marketing.
But the truth is that,until a credible new model is adopted,advertisers and their agencies will continue to purchase advertising on circulation metrics.But our industry believes that using readership metrics is a better model,not only for advertisers but for our magazines'relationship with their readers.
For today's magazine consumer marketing executives,the current model pushes production to the level needed to reach the rate base number...to do it as efficiently as possible and with little regard to the level of readership engagement.
The advertising selling side says we need this many copies to sell advertising and circulators have to figure out the most efficient way to get to that number.In fact the circulation department often performs as a subcontractor based on the requirements set by the advertising department.
It is time for a business model that puts things in their proper order.A model that makes it possible for advertisers to buy based on who reads our magazines,not the number of copies we distribute.This model has worked well for the cable television business from the beginning.Cable TV focuses on building subions profitably and at the same time,on building the audience of viewers advertisers want to reach.
Because the problem with U.S.magazines is not whether we have enough distribution,the problem is having enough readership,and knowing what readership our magazines have.
In competing for advertising market share versus other media,magazines ad representatives usually don't get into a discussion of whether magazine adverting is effective in moving customers in the same way the internet can,the way television is trying to,and most importantly,the way advertisers are looking to get a return on their investment.The reason is quite ******.
Does a computer visit Google?No,the people operating that computer do.When looking at ESPN's audience numbers,does a media buyer wonder how many TV sets were turned on?In the same way,a copy of a magazine doesn't buy a car,or plan to buy one,the readers of that magazine do.And that's readers,plural,not just the first person to get that copy.
Advertising effectiveness measurement in all other national media,whether measuring brand awareness,purchase intent,driving customers to the web,or consumer actions taken,is derived from an audience,viewership or readership metric,not a distribution metric,and the price of advertising in all other national media,except magazines,is based on audience.
Basing the magazine advertising pricing model on the number of copies distributed is out of date,forcing magazines to operate in advertising isolation,and most importantly is out of sync with the way clients and agencies are demanding advertising effectiveness measurement and accountability.
To bring our business model up to date,the time has come to make a ****** yet revolutionary change.Readership,not distribution,should become the currency of magazine advertising.Publishers need to get themselves out of the advertising ghetto by providing advertisers this currency based on the quantity and quality of readership,not the number of copies distributed.
What is this change likely going to mean in terms of circulation practice and strategy.It will mean that we will focus circulation strategy on the two pillars of distribution profitability and readership development.
We will unleash our consumer marketers to focus on distributing copies at the right level,at a profit and at the same time,focus on growing the readership which comes from the right distribution strategy.That makes good business sense for the editor,the publisher,the advertiser,and most importantly,the reader.
It makes it possible to measure magazine advertising exposure relative to the audience as other media do.And it will make consumer marketing more relevant to what our editors are trying to convey,and what our consumers want to see and read.
In order to do this,we must address how readership is measured.And as I said,the MPA and its members are taking the necessary steps in exploring and developing that process.
Right now,magazine audience numbers are not stable or timely enough to be used for advertising buying.When the proverbial rubber hits the road,magazine ad buyers make the buy based on circulation data from ABC statements.
This practice will not change unless a viable alternative is developed,meaning reliable audience metrics that are timely,stable,and ultimately,comparable to the way other media audiences are measured.
I can tell you that when publishers and advertisers can move to audience based measurement metrics it will be a major step forward for the industry.It will change for the better the way advertisers think about and buy magazines.And will not only get magazines into the game,but on a much more level playing field versus other media when it comes to measuring advertising effectiveness.
The opportunity to measure our audiences will be opened up to a larger number of suppliers,creating a healthy competition that produces new models,new thinking,and fresh approaches to measuring and reporting not only how many people read our magazines,but their level of engagement with the magazine's content.
