COMMENT: Why can’t the MPA and Publishers Australia get it on already?
Yesterday’s news that Australia’s big publishers have pretty much given up on their industry marketing body shouldn’t have been a big surprise.
Even if it is a tad ironic to be lecturing their customers about the importance of maintaining marketing spend in a downturn while taking the axe to marketing their medium. (Because, and I quote: “the MPA had taken advice and decided that running advertising campaigns was not a worthwhile endeavour”. Imagine if a client said that.)
According to the Fin’s story yesterday, it was also because “getting MPA’s members to agree on anything was always very hard work” and because “ACP and Pacific are big enough to market the magazine medium in their own right”. Hard to guess the source of the comments, although it’s interesting to note that on the previous page, journalist Neil Shoebridge quoted ACP’s Phil Scott and Pacific Magazines’ Nick Chan. Poor old News Magazines doesn’t get a look in.
And along with the death of a joint marketing effort, goes the MPA Awards, which used to be quite a swanky night, even if Pacific and ACP used to take it in turns to walk up to the stage to pick up their trophies. I think that’s what MPA chairman Chan means when he talks about the “cynical” views of the awards in yesterday’s B&T Today.
Yet the obvious opportunity to give the magazines a credible awards is right under their noses – the country has a second trade body for magazines – Publishers Australia. This tends to consist of B2B titles and the smaller players.
That’s mainly on account of the MPA being a closed shop, only open to the largest players – at last count, just the seven of them.
Publishers Australia even does its own, reasonable credible, awards. And while not as glamorous as the MPA bash (it’s at lunchtime, and if the welcome speech from sponsor Geon had gone on any longer I’d have stabbed myself in the eye with my fork), the Bell Awards gets a good turnout.
Imagine if you merged the two events – you’d have decent levels of competition, a huge turnout, and the sort of gathering that would become a great advert for the whole magazine industry.
And what if you merged the two bodies – to create one organisation representing consumer, contract and business publishing. Again, that would have some clout.
It’s something that has been previously contemplated, although I understand that the MPA has been pretty dismissive of it.
It’s a good time to do it. Publishers Australia is moving forward under new executive director Alan Sarkissian. Last year’s Bell Awards had far more energy about them- even if the ceremony did drag on until 3.53pm (I remember because the after-event bar was only open until 4pm). Although I’m told that pressures are building for a separate customer publishing organisation, which this could obviously solve.
And there are barriers too – not least that both organisations would need new constitutions.
But as one industry body, it would be so much stronger.
Whether the big boys of the MPA see it that way is another matter. I fear that if they try to market the medium on their own, it will consist of little more than sticking filler ads in all the empty inventory they’re currently suffering from. But perhaps they’ve been given advice that this is all they need to do to see out the downturn.
I think it’s time for Nick Chan and Publishers Australia chairman Geoff Hird to have a chat. Whaddaya say boys?
Linkedin
It’ll never happen. Media egos are just too huge. Some of these companies would rather see their rival fail and go down with them than both succeed. That goes for magazines, TV, newspapers, you name it..
Not to mention that the big guys want nothing to do with the little guys.
Jeez – it’s like being in a playground…
User ID not verified.
Publishers Australia have major problems of their own, the problems remain even though their is a new executive team. the major issues being the lack of sophistication and relevance of speakers content at their lunchtime functions, and the selection criteria for winners at the very pedestrian Bell awards. B2B magazines competing with consumer magazines, it’s a dogs breakfast.
User ID not verified.
The Bell awards by Publishers australia are a joke. Best consumer mgazine of the year and best launches? Didn’t even have audits! Anyone in their right mind who supports an organisation that allows dodgy publishing practices like that to be a model of excellence for their members needs to have their head examined. We resigned from that body in disgust. The managent at the time didn’t really see why having an audit was necessary. Enough said.
Couldn’t agree more with anonymous. The criteria for their awards seem to be about placating some of the bottom feeder members rather than trying to raise the standards of publishing in Australia.
User ID not verified.
Despite being one industry, the interests of the large publishers and those of the smaller publishers often diverge. This is not to mention the separate world of B2B publishing that Publishers Australia also deals with.
As an organisation completely dependent on consumer magazines, mag nation would love to see one industry body where all the relevant players (big and small) get a seat at the table. Not just publishers but advertisers, distributors and even retailers. And yes, pigs can fly.
User ID not verified.
Thanks Tim for bringing the issue out in the open. Yes things are booming and moving forward here at Publishers Australia, with many of our targeted title publishers doing well in the marketplace.
We represent the many… MPA represented the few. However, there’s no reason why our differences couldn’t end up being positively aligned. My door is always open on that one.
As for the Bell Awards, yes, we aim to be responsibly glamorous and wasn’t host James O’Loghlin just terrific! With an ever-increasing number of members, a sharper selection of experienced judges and a great all-round atmosphere, the Bell Awards 09 are going be better, more relevant and more exciting than ever.
We’ll be putting on the publishing industry’s big awards ‘do’ again on November 20 at The Four Seasons Hotel in Sydney – see you there.
Beyond Bell Awards – we’re also staging the state-based Media Engagement Awards starting next month, Professional Development Programs that are valuable and practical for small and large organisations, and a series of thought leadership round-tables.
It’s all about raising the standards of magazine publishing in Australia.
Kind regards
Alan Sarkissian
Executive Director, Publishers Australia
User ID not verified.
Thanks, Alan,
Now all we need to do is hear from someone at MPA and maybe we can bring these star-crossed lovers together… anyone fancy giving Nick Chan a poke for us?
Anyone? No? Anyone…?
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Raising the bar Alan?
Don’t make me laugh. Let’s take a little peek at your winners of the “prestigious” Bell Awards for last year.
REAL WEDDINGS. I’ll put aside whether or not I agree with it being the “Magazine Of The year” or not, You have decreed that it’s the “Best Consumer Magazine in Australia with a print run of less than 30,000”.
With no Audit. With no Roy Morgan readership.
Okay then, let’s look at the “Best consumer magazine with a print run over 30,000”. That of course is the magazine called “G” from Luna Media. I wasn’t familiar with it, but hey I’m only a consumer.
But the figures never lie. Do they. Let’s check out the circulation. No. They don’t have an ABC audit? Surely the best consumer magazine in Australia would have an ABC audit?
But of course they would appear in Roy Morgans numbers because they are the best consumer magazine in Australia.
What a surprise. No Roy Morgan.
So why not enlighten everyone here as to how this raises the standards of magazine publishing in Australia?
Those pesky things like audits and Roy Morgan numbers seem to get in the way of a good story.
An audit costs $600 or so and takes a days work. Even your most cash strapped members can afford it. In fact my experience is that people without audits are hiding something. But that’s just me being cynical. Maybe all Mumberlla readers could stump up, say a dollar or two so that you could have an audited title win your awards?
You raise your standards and I will think about rejoining your organisation. But I will wait until you find an audited title to win your consumer mags category……
User ID not verified.
Publishers Australia is run largely by a voluntary board of publishing professionals who are passionate about their industry, and represent a mix of very different business models (b2b, niche consumer + custom). Our membership crosses an even broader range of disciplines, making it difficult (on a very tight budget) to be all things to all people – but we have made some significant ground in th epast 12 months.
If Carrob and Anonymous (interested that you are hiding real identiites) had attended some of our recent lunch events they may have found some extremely relevant and valuable presentations – as opposed to the sales pitches and ‘edge case’ fare of the past.
With a new Professional Development Program to launch in April this year and a (first ever) Newsagency Action Leadership Group fored this month, PA is making every effort to add value to our membership, and raise the profile of niche, targeted media in a tough economic environment.
As for the Bell Awards and the audit argument, this issue is under review with the board at present. With the ABC/CAB making some significant improvements in their systems and procedures this year, this has already paved the way for a closer relationship with PA.
But it does not detract from the Awards rewarding excellence in design, editorial and production values – values that were always at the core of the Bell Awards. And it was also great to celebrate our industry, our products and our people at a ‘house full’ event last November.
An Association is only ever going to be as good as the people who are willing to sacrifice personal (and business) time and energy to make things happen, and as for the naysayers, we would welcome you to join one of our specific sub-committees and help make a change – rather than just blowing off steam in a blog!Next meetings (and speakers/topics) are posted on the PA website at
http://www.publishersaustralia.....cheons.htm
Cheers
Geoff Hird
Chairman – Publishers Australia
Associate Publisher – Westwick-Farrow Publishing
User ID not verified.
Geoff,
I appreciate your comments. However at this stage I will remain anonymous. All I can tell you is that I am run a publishing company that is EXACTLY the type that Publishers Australia are trying to attract as members.
I have spoken with Alan in the past, and have let my thoughts be known. I will also confess that some of your new events have been reasonably good. The new managament is definetly trying to improve things.
I am all for celebrating excellence in design, production and editorial. That’s a noble cause. But you are hamstrung by some of you member organisations. In the context of a unified magazine publishers group that represents the ENTIRE industry, these people you celebrate wouldn’t get a look in. So you would have an event night were almost all of theawards went to more recognised magazines from bigger publishers. It would raise the awarness of a magazine in the broader media community, if the likes of “Real Weddings” was able to win the magazine equivalent of a Walkley, but you know they won’t. It would be great to see though!
Which brings me back to my original point. Publishers Australia has to lose some of it’s dodgy members in order to grow. I am not the only dissilusioned publisher out there.
To say that you are “working” on audits? – Sorry “Making significant improvements in their systems”? That’s just passing the buck.
The thing is, if you want a reputable awards, you can’t be having this discussion. No audit no award. It’s pretty simple. If you have nothing to hide, and are running a publishng business responsibly how on earth can you have a problem with getting an audit?
Only if it interferes with your fibs of course……
User ID not verified.
Geoff, I have attended a lunch under the new regime, I found the content unsophisticated and out of touch with where technology, and the market, currently sit. I do appreciate B2B members may have found it useful.
Identity is irrelevant, the criticism is valid.
User ID not verified.
Get over it carrob. The “intelligentia” of Australian media buyers and others have a far better appreciation of what target marketing is all about in the 21st century. Get over your fixation with numbers – that’s crap. A lot of PA members publish very targetted niche magazines that are very influential in their own sphere. I publish a small circ mag and we take it right up to the News Ltd’s of this world – we get direct feedback from our clients that demonstrates a better result when we have less than 5% of their readership numbers.
User ID not verified.
Garaham,
This is not a fixation about numbers. It’s about TRANSPARENCY. If you have nothing to hide and take it up to the big boys you should have an audit.
I don’t quite buy the argument that an audit would somehow lessen the advertising effectiveness of your magazine? How would having an audit make it less viable to advertisers?
I too run a relativley niche magazine. Niche (targetted) readerships are effective. But we still get an audit.
It’s about transparrency, and being accountable. It has nothing to do with the quantum of the number or the effectiveness of niche titles. All an audit does is say. “Yes. We are legit. We print the 15,000 copies that we claim in our media kit”. I am sure you are legit. But there are a lot of illegitimate publishers out there claiming circulations that are not real. Surely it is the responsibility of the industry to weed these people out?
On that basis, Please explain to me how getting an audit would be detrimental to your business.
User ID not verified.
I had an audit but found the CAB would only appear in my life at election time (membership renewal), with no other contact during the year. In our business, we have a long-list of multi-national advertisers, premium global brands. Since the 2001 launch of my current publication, one company asked me for audit figures – ONE – and that was Singapore Airlines. I have discontinued my membership of CAB. I didn’t see any value. So auditing numbers just does not stack up.
This is why I believe PA is correct in pushing media engagement – this is where the future of the media impact lays. It’s about personalisation. People are busy. All industries has shoddy players – I don’t want them in the industry any more than you do – but I am living proof it’s not about numbers. YOU ARE NOT HEARING ME! Importantly, media buyers are!
User ID not verified.
Graham, what you are saying doesn’t make sense to me. I am obviously not the strategic thinker that you are. Only one company asked you for an audit figure so therefore it’s not important? You are giving shoddy players oxygen by not having an audit. And trust me. You HAVE lost advertising because you did not have an audit. I know this because certain national advertisers will not advertise in unaudited publications. Maybe you haven’t been on their radar?
So the answer is about personalisation and the pushing of media engagement? Sure. I’ll accept that. PA should be talking about the benefits of targetted audited titles.
But by deciding an audit “wasn’t worth it”, you, as a board member of PA are sending a message that audits are uneccessary and cumbersome. They cost about $600 so you should set an example and get an audit. Tell everyone to get an audit and tell your advertisers at every opportunity that they shouldn’t advertise in unaudited titles.
You instantly make it a lot harder for shoddy players to exist. And as a board member of PA I am dissapointed to hear that you aren’t taking the first, most basic and easy to implement step in stamping out their practices.
BTW – Please stop telling me “it’s about numbers”. I don’t care about the numbers. I care about the fact that you are a board member of PA and find getting an audit too much hassle.
User ID not verified.
While no offence is intended, the debate above is typical of the narrow view of whom an industry body needs to represent. We deal with many consumer publications that have a print run of less than 2,000 copies. Some of them have less than 10 ads in them. Most of these publishers would not even know what “audit” means. And it is completely irrelevant to them and their advertisers. As are the Bell Awards.
One of mag nation’s bestselling titles by volume focuses on an incredibly niche topic. We sell close to 1,000 copies of each issue, and they print only 4,000 copies. I also advertise in this magazine and pay $400 for a full page! I know most of their other advertisers and not one cares about an audit (the title is distributed via the boot of the publisher’s car). These publishers have other agendas and publishing motives and selling ads does not always take the same priority as it does for most consumer mags who are current PA members.
Many of you might be thinking who cares, but these type of publishers represent the true “long tail” in the industry (aggregated they are quite a force). There are so many of these publishers out there who don’t even hit your radar. Most PA members are giants in their eyes, while ACP and Pac Mags are in a different universe. Should these guys not have representation within the industry and be included in discussions that shape our future? They would certainly bring a different and interesting perspective.
The point I am making is that the above debate highlights how most people in this industry judge others through the lens of their own experiences. Both Graham and Carrob are right… and wrong. But to say that the absence of an audit signifies dodgyness ignores the fact that not all publishers are the same. If publishers are able to acknowledge their differences, perhaps they will then be able to move on and focus on their common interests. And perhaps, just maybe, we might 1) be able to move past silly discussions about the importance of an audit for PA members, and 2) get an industry body that actually represents the industry and not just a subset of it.
User ID not verified.
Thankyou Sahil, very diplomatically and appropriately put. I do appreciate very much that you have a close relationship with niche publishers and with your retail customers, and in this respect you truly run a very unique business. Your point demonstrates effectiveness (I believe) of your broad product range. Carrob insists it’s not about numbers but talks about numbers in every sentence. A colleague once told me of an Antiques store that had the back cover advert of an Antiques magazine each issue because they knew Kerry Packer was a subcriber – and they advertised pieces they knew would tempt him. Perhaps carrob can clarify where where numbers fit into that argument when the 1 reader and the 1 advertiser were obviously satisfied. Yes, a position on audit should be thrashed out, but it’s not the be-all and end-all. When you talk about audit; you are bring a focus on numbers and there is a lot more to it than that. I suspect carrob has an axe to grind but prefers hiding behind a smoke-screen. PA are dead right to take a broad approach to represent the industry at large and to recognise the vigor brought to the market by up and coming publishers. A qualitative process needs to be as effective as it can possibly be to keep crooks out. Sahil is on the money.
User ID not verified.
Graham, I don’t have an axe to grind. I don’t have a fixation about the numbers. However you seem to. And believe it or not – I don’t have an axe to grind about audits.
The thing aout this whole debate is that we seem to agree that there are dodgy publishers out there. How in the main do they make money? By claiming circulations and readerships that don’t exist.
I have no argument about circulations. If a guy takes an ad to get to Kerry Packer or someone else takes an ad to reach some SA business leader in your mag – I don’t care. All I am saying is that the easiest way to stop dodgy publishers is to have everyone get an audit. People will alsways make advertising decisions on things other than audits. I am not as stupid as you seem to think I am.
Audits appear to be such a hassle for people such as yourself. I understand (but don’t agree). However, I would love to hear about this new qualitative process that will keep the crooks out.
I just thought audits would be easier for everyone. And I still don’t see why having an audit would stop someone from purchasing an ad in either of the magazines mentioned above.
I think having an audit regardless of your circulation is sound publishing practice – or are you going to contradict yourself and say that media buyers are NOT in the 21st century and can’t apreciate the benefits of a targetted circulation?
Graham, you seem to think an audit is about numbers. I think an audit is about legitimacy of the publishing model being sold. That’s all.
User ID not verified.
Graham, I have to say as an observer to this blog post I think you are being deliberately coy in this regard. When you sell a page to an advertiser you are selling the opportunity for that advertiser to reach your readers. When an advertiser asks you (as they should if they have any professional competence at all) “Graham how many readers will I be reaching with my advert?” what do you say to them?
I believe strongly that you have a duty as a responsible publisher to be able to tell them that figure and be able to independantly verify it so that they can buy with confidence. If you choose not to do this it simply says to me (and I believe to many others) that you have chosen to not do what is easy to do because it is not in your best interests to do it. You have chosen to not audit Graham because it does not suit your own purposes – let’s not pretend otherwise.
User ID not verified.
Mr Corbett. Thank you for the voice of logic. I couldn’t agree more.
It’s dissapointing that a board member of Publishers Australia is obfuscating so much on the simple matter of the importance of an Audit.
The example he sets simply backs up what I was saying in earlier posts.
User ID not verified.
In some respects, I am comforted you guys don’t get it. In other respects, I am disturbed. For Mr Corbett’s purposes, I’ve had a CAB audit which came within 5 copies of my claim. We have built a very strong media brand, with reader-focussed content, the highest levels of trust, respect and credibility and a level of influence in business and government that’s taken us by surprise. Our partners want to align with our brand. Numbers are the supporting information, I have never denied that. Would it make my publication less prestigious in the eyes of my readers, whom we serve first and foremost, if I did not have an audit, no it damn well would not. This is the bit you don’t seem to get. It’s more than apparent that carrob has a bone to pick with an unruly competitor – and that’s an unpalatable situation with which I would sympathise. But narrow-mindedness and self-interest does not promote a diverse and creative society. The Bell Awards celebrate creativity and production values as Geoff points out. I can’t believe you keep denying you don’t have a fixation with numbers when it’s the central plank of every post you’ve left. Carrob, you’re calling on others to stand-up and be counted, whilst you’re in hiding?! What does that lead others to think?
User ID not verified.
Graham, Yoour incoherent response just shows that you don’t get it. Maybe you could do me a favour and write a little piece for Tim on why Audits are not important? It would be from a board member of Publishers Australia so it would be a great piece and sure to attract a lot of comments!
What do you say Tim? I’ll happily go toe to toe with Graham on this issue and even out myself if Graham is up for it! Mumberlla can host the fight!
As for my identity. It really isn’t important. I publish anonymously but my opinions are valid. I am a publisher with an audit. You are a publisher who sees no benefit in Audits. Nothing else really matters.
The fact of the matter is that you hide behind a smokescreen of “it’s too hards” “The audit people contact me once a year” and weak anecdotes about how your brand is so engaged and wonderful that an audit is unnecessary. That drivel, is something that any astute observer can see through (just like Mr Corbett).
Tim, I would appreciate if you could pass Graham’s opinion on to some senior media buyer contacts and see what their reactions are?
Anyhow, Graham. Happy to have this fight publicly and hosted by Mumbrella. Bring it on.
Are you up for it?
Or is Publishers Australia not comfortable with a board member publicly taking a position that Audits aren’t important?
I really am breathlessly looking forward to a response, but sadly fearing there will be none.
User ID not verified.
I think we are all breathlessly exhausted by the exchanges which demonstrates why no unifying body could ever exist and how niche publishing in Australia suffers at the hands of much better organsied media bodies – radio the key leader in promoting its legitimacy to advertisers.
So, to take a small little step into this rather lovely debate can I put it this way.
If any niche publisher ever had to rely on numbers they would last one issue.
Graham, to me the audit is not about and never should be for a niche publication about the number.
It is more simply about the legitimacy, professionalism and transparency of the publication and business.
If your seeking a strong and large revenue stream for advertising then the professional thing to do is to audit. You certainly can not be worried about the comparitve number because as you say “we take it right up to the News Ltd’s of this world – we get direct feedback from our clients that demonstrates a better result when we have less than 5% of their readership numbers” Graham
I get smashed in direct circulation comparisons every day, but I lose very little because of it.
I have an audit and I have a strong set of advertising clients who reap great rewards from my product and environment.
That “to audit or not to audit” is even debatable highlights just how far niche publishing has to go in Australia. That this oposition is vehmnetly argued by a board member of PA says so much more.
And we even haven’t talked about the legitimacy of the editorial of the winners of the Bell Awards. Perhaps Alan you should change the categories to say Custom Brochures Disguised as a Magazine.
PA should set a standard about editorial and audits. Then spend a whole lot more time educating the marketers of the world about the value of the vibrant and professional niche media that is indeed accountable and transparent. Or are you worried that the PA members would be highly comprimised by such a stance and the remaing few memebers wouldn’t be able to pay for a CEO?
The alternative, which PA is certainly currently embracing, is to celebrate largely opaque publishing with compromised editorial, again reinforcing prejudices about niche media.
Radio does it effectively. But then again we can never agree whether an audit is a professional standard or a pain in the arse. Seriously we are still having this debate . . .
User ID not verified.
In reality, PA and the ABC/CAB should be working on the same page – that of credibility. The ABC has credibility, PA does not.
Geoff, you comment above that the CAB/ABC have “significant improvements” over the past year. I find your comments quite perplexing in this regard. The ABC has been around for over 75 years providing independent verifcation of publisher sales, if anyone is out of sync with the market it is PA. The ABC is a market leader who not only report circulation, but educate the marketplace on its importance – surely this is a lead PA should be applauding and encouraging – not deriding?
It should also be mentioned that the reason the CAB exists in itself is to provide independent verification for those titles that do not wholly or at all rely on paid sales. Any argument that suggests that this does not add value to a publication is ludicrous. This being anargument being presented by a Board member of PA this highlights why so many medium sized consumer based magazine companies have little or no involvement in PA, despite the attempt at reform over the past 12 months.
An Industry body should be a a body for the whole industry, not to pander to the interests of the somewhat lacklustre B2B minority.
User ID not verified.
Publisher’s Australia new ED Alan Sarkissian and Chair Geoff Hird are to be congratulated on taking the organisation forward on a platform of media engagement. This is the future of the media business globally, confirmed by Geoff’s recent trip to the US to research the market there and deliver a keynote speech to the industry. Yes, this is about raising the standards of publishing in Australia – and promoting sustainable business.
Three of the Big Four multi-national audit firms who are included on my advertiser list understand this media engagement trend.
I believe PA ought to have effective links with CAB/ABC – and as you have been a disgruntled ex PA member carrob, I have been a dissatisfied ex-CAB member. I note ABC has been around for 75 years Joan, but there’s a lot more work to be done. PA has a very different job to do and is only half your age. Let’s hope all these bridges can be built. This is the tough part of our business being in a smaller regional centre; cost-effectiveness of servicing the market and maintaining a face to the organisation is an issue but PA have been here more than CAB in the past 5 years (that I am aware of). We did have a very senior London-based News Ltd exec who reports direct to James Murdoch present at a luncheon we held recently in Adelaide, and another event we ran made the front page of The Australian – not so lacklustre?! Quentin’s remarks were very constructive (thanks Mate). I did slip-up by saying “auditing numbers just doesn’t stack up” without adding “in isolation” – this was also said in context of influence and not business practice.
Carrob has twisted my words and has got a bit carried away with himself as a consequence. Have your debate with the customers at Magnation carrob, if you must insist on having one. You might prefer it they had two departments – one for audited titles and one for un-audited titles.
I make no apology for pushing the importance of a broader range of issues and promoting what truly reader-centric publishers understand, and for the fact that a number of Bell Award categories are just as applicable to un-audited as audited titles. Little guys deserve an opportunity to be recognised. Undoubtedly, this will all be a highlight of forthcoming PA Board discussions. Thanks for your input.
User ID not verified.