Thanks to changes being implemented by the newspaper industry's Audit Board of Circulations (ABC), it may be, as I suspected in a previous post (NewsBusters; BizzyBlog) that the 30-month analysis of newspaper print circulation drops I did last week (NewsBusters; BizzyBlog) is the last "clean" one I'll be able to do.
The ABC announcement is here. Editor and Publisher's Jennifer Saba describes the changes that appear likely to prevent meaningful comparisons of new circulation figures to those in prior reports (bolds are mine; HT to Recovering Journalist, whose post on the topic is hysterical, though I always thought that CPAs were the ones who answered "What do you want it to be?" when asked "What is 2 + 2?" :-->):
During an annual meeting last week in Chicago, the board agreed to several recommendations by a committee -- consisting of both publishers and advertising executives, ABC stressed -- that will entail the following changes:
*Implement a flexible pricing model where newspapers will be considered paid by ABC regardless of the price for which the copy was sold.
*Other-paid circulation will become "verified circulation" similar to how ABC accounts for magazines, meaning there will no longer have to be payment for third-party copies or Newspapers in Education for the circulation to count.
*Hotel and employee copies, currently under other-paid, will be reclassified under a new paid-circulation category.
*Newspapers will have flexibility to convert home subscribers to a greater frequency.
"Our aim was to streamline the audit process, clearly define important measurement standards, and improve overall communication between newspaper buyers and sellers," Craig Sinclair, vice president of advertising at Walgreen Co., said in a statement.
ABC has been working on these new strategies since the summer of 2006. The specifics will take approximately three years to work out, according to ABC, but it will alter the face of the FAS-FAX, publisher's statements, and audit reports.
Even if the ABC continues to report separate paid print-circulation figures, which does not appear absolutely certain (they may be buried with other total audience measures, or at least kept that way in information given to the public), the first two bolded changes, and possibly the third, are fundamental changes to how circulation has historically been determined.
The changes also appear to present an opportunity for newspapers to game the system. One possibility would appear to include dumping "Newspapers in Education," wanted or not, into college campus classrooms, cafeterias, meeting areas, and dorms. After all, these freebies count as part of "verified circulation," which drives advertising rates.
I see no evidence from the ABC that they have any intention of restating circulation figures reported in prior periods. Even if they do, it would be nice to know how far back they intend to go.
Given the changes above, it would appear that the March 2008 circulation report will show higher figures for most, if not all, papers, and has the potential for being spun by the industry to those who don't dig into the detail as some kind of turnaround for the industry. We shall see.
Recovering Journalist points out that this is all window-dressing, and perhaps self-delusion:
Cooking the books isn't going to solve the problems of relevancy, competition from the Web, and failure to truly innovate (except maybe in the circulation-accounting department, apparently).
In the name of accuracy, I suggest that ABC consider changing its name to the Association of Book Cookers.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Inflating numbers only puts
November 14, 2007 - 13:09 ET by Six String SpiffInflating numbers only puts a shiny bow on the turd that is reality for the MSM. We all know what is going on. The Papers aren't fooling anyone but themselves, as usual.
Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range At 0800 Daily.
It matters to the
November 14, 2007 - 13:14 ET by dscottIt matters to the supporting advertisers whose costs are dependent on circulation. In other words, anyone who advertises in the paper is going to get rooked with inflated circulation numbers attempting to justify an inordinately high fee. That however is only going to be short term on the order of 1 year since if they put out numbers every 6 months, on the second report if they see a resumption in declining circulation as before then they are back to square one. All this does is put off the inevitable, the day of reckoning with the shareholders who have a right to demand why editors insist on a engaging in the loosing business model of liberal bias versus reporting the news.
I suspect, the real issue is an attempt to give lib papers a one year breathing room to propagandize the Dem candidate for the 2008 elections. If advertisers revolt now before the election, a change in business model will be disasterous for the Dems hope of victory. Think Air America 1.0 (George Soros), it went belly up in Oct 2006 just before the election but lived long enough to spread it's propaganda, Air America 2.0 (The Green brothers) will do the same. btw-both getting illegal tax write-offs (IMO) for a failed business venture which was really a political propaganda outlet for the Dem Party. That's my conspiracy theory for the week.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Lousy circulation by any
November 14, 2007 - 13:59 ET by pocomocoLousy circulation by any other name is still lousy circulation.
Since the ABC has made their intentions known, do they now believe the advertisers will go along with the sham?
NYT
November 14, 2007 - 14:41 ET by American TaxpayerGoodbye NYT it is indeed a pleasure, possibly if your editors had atempted to actually report the news instead of inventing it to suit your own political agenda circulation might be up instead of down. Don't worry just yet though, as I am sure the left wing liberals will funnel money to you via the fairness docterine. Then you will be just like PBS, a taxpayer funded liberal left wing foghorn.
As I have stated in earlier
November 14, 2007 - 14:46 ET by Right2thePointAs I have stated in earlier threads related to this, the new method would be more useful if they split the numbers out. Sure there is a net component to it, but if you go from hardcopy only to hardcopy plus net only you are smoke and mirroring the issue.
It needs to be reported as a three part issue
hardcopy +net = total
That show the efficience of the reach but also more accuratly reflect what ad agencies focus partialy on which is dwell time on the hardcopy with little in the way of a correlating measurement in the online area (how long did you read and article or stay online reading many articles)
Dwell time effects decisions as to ad placement since the longer you dwell on the hardcopy to more likely you are to notice the ad and thus possibly generate a message lockin or a response.
I'm no tax expert, but I
November 14, 2007 - 15:54 ET by fitzfongI'm no tax expert, but I would imagine that newspapers donate copies to hotels (or at least to schools) and classify such donations as deductible business expenses (marketing for future circulation or as an educational "tool"). They then want to count those donations as part of the circulation basis to charge higher ad rates? That sounds really fishy, probably illegal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt the IRS would let that slide.
By the way, having worked in advertising for many years, I doubt too many potential advertisers would fall for this newspaper circulation ruse. The scam would be akin to a McDonald's overcharging for an extra value meal. Sure, the two cheeseburgers and fries are good, but for the right price. Just because the manager at McDonald's tells you that they're serving the same food as they are at Le Cirque doesn't mean that customers are going to pay $100 for 2 cheeseburgers, fries and a Coke.