Giveaways hide true picture of newspaper circulation carnage
Last weeks’ numbers showing a reduction in the rate of decline of newspaper circulation was entirely as a result of publishers increasing the number of giveaway copies, analysis of the data by Mumbrella has revealed.
The numbers appeared to show newspaper circulation close to stabilising, with four newspapers actually securing slight increases. However, in every case, these increases were only achieved by giving away more newspapers. Excluding those copies, all four papers actually recorded a decline, while papers that showed slight declines actually experienced more dramatic falls in directly paying readers.
As well as directly paying individual consumers, newspapers can claim circulation for copies that are provided to airlines and hotels, educational sales, event sales and bundled sales.
When those numbers are excluded, the state of newspapers is worse than it appeared.
One of the most extreme examples is the weekend edition of Fairfax Media’s Australian Financial Review.
That paper recorded an apparent fall from 84,528 in the final three months of 2009 to 78,783 in the same period in 2010 – a drop of 6.8%
However, during the same period, Fairfax increased the proportion of copies sent to airlines and hotels from 4.26% to 6.79%. Excluding those copies, the paper’s fall would have been above 9% – down from just over 80,000 copies to just over 73,000 copies.
Excluding those types of copies from the papers that claimed a circulation rise, the Saturday edition of News Ltd’s Sydney-based Daily Telegraph moves from a rise of 1.46% to a fall of 0.8%.
Fairfax Media’s Sunday Age goes from a 1.05% rise to a fall of 1.9%.
And Fairfax Media’s Sun-Herald’s near-standstill 0.07% rise becomes a 3.8% fall.
The fourth paper to record a slight increase of 0.06%, the weekday edition of News Ltd’s Adelaide Advertiser, saw a fall of 2.6% without the help of those indirect copies.
There is no suggestion that any of the papers broke the rules of the Audit Bureau of Circulations as they stand. However, the summary numbers provided by the ABC that the trade press base their reports on – and which advertisers and media may rely on for their spending decisions – include the giveaway copies.
In addition, there is currently no way to tell from the numbers of paid copies what proportion are at full price, or something approaching it. As Mumbrella has previously reported, a major loophole is that annual subscriptions sold at such a tiny cost that the consumer has little incentive to collect the newspaper every day can still be bundled as a paid edition regardless of whether it actually gets into a consumer’s hand.
An ABC committee is currently discussing potential reform to the reporting regime although its expected pre-Christmas decision is now nearly two months late.
The reporting of anything but the headline number is a contentious one, with ABC members banned from stripping out the numbers when they discuss comparative numbers. Late last year, News Ltd was censured for pointing out that when giveaway copies are excluded from the figures, the Saturday edition of The Telegraph is neck and neck with the Sydney Morning Herald. Excluding giveaways, The Saturday Tele sells around 314,000 to the SMH’s 316,000. However, because of the extra giveaways, the Herald still seems to be well ahead of the Tele with a headline number of 341,041 to 327,177.
In countries such as the UK, the reporting standard is reversed, with the main headline number being the one where individual customers have paid full price for their copy either at the newsstand or by subscription. In Australia this number does not appear in the data at all – anyone wanting to know it has to work it out by removing all of the other types of sales. Even then they will not know if the customer paid full price.
Meanwhile, the metro newspaper with the biggest proportion of circulation coming from giveaways – just over 11% – is Fairfax’s Sydney Sunday paper the Sun-Herald. The last year saw jumps in all areas of giveaways for the paper. It includes 5.2% educational sales (up from 3.14% a year ago); 2.51% airline and hotel sales (up from 2.41%) and 2.35% bundled sales – up from 0.89%.
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
Hilarious that this article sits next to one that say we don’t trust media!
It is simple for newspapers (and mags) to simply tell us how many are sold at full price, how many at discounted subs, and how many given away – 3 numbers – and only two of which have value to advertisers.
I get the SMK on sub for $79 for 6 months – and on Friday when shopping in Franklins got offered a free copy with my carton of milk! Fairfax can’t even give it away. And I won’t renew because ive gone to the Australian on ipad at $8.99 per month!
Paper and mag circs continue to fall and ad-rates continue to rise – and some media buyers still don’t get it.
User ID not verified.
Thanks Mumbrella for continuing to champion this issue. The SMH are shocking at this – if you are a member of fitness first / visit a museum / university / leave the house in the next 24 hours you will be able to find a free copy. There’s nothing wrong with that as a tactic (giving away copies), but be clear in your reporting and don’t try to obscure the real rise and fall of your titles.
Keep on flagging it MumB.
User ID not verified.
I can understand the need to be more transparent in reporting, but we really need to define what we are saying to the market about newspaper giveaways. This actually needs some market research.
Are we saying that educational copies are not as important to advertisers to paid copies? Are we saying that we are more likely to read the paper that is delivered to our doorstep everyday, than the free one we are given on the plane?
I really think we need to be clear about this before going on the attack about circulation.
I can only speak from personal experience, but in a hotel or a plane is the only time I actually get to read the paper from cover to cover (on weekdays). The rest is usually a quick flick through the news section while standing at reception with a coffee.
What do advertisers think about this? Surely quite a few advertisers would be happy to see educational copies being distributed, especially those targeting younger demographics.
If a newspaper’s commitment to advertisers is to get their product in front of its audience, then surely giveaways need to be a part of this mix. I don’t see anything wrong with it as long as its audited, and the giveaways are actually being used rather than being dumped to drive up circulation.
If anyone wants to give me free copies of their magazines and newspapers to boost their circulation, feel free!
User ID not verified.
Isn’t it time the publishers acknowledged that there needs to be a shift in attitude here so we don’t have to continue reading stories that can only be damaging to their credibility.
Come on guys lets lift the lid on the detail and get some positive stories out there and show some real progress in the reforms!
User ID not verified.
One of the issues here is the focus on the top line number and not how the various buckets contribute towards it. As highlighted in this article this means that publishers can adjust circulation through no charge channels to inflate/maintain the overall numbers. While there may be value in these copies there needs to be more analysis of the buckets to build a clearer position of what it happeing with circulation and what both is and isn’t of value for your campaign..
User ID not verified.
I think Dave has hit the nail on the head.
There seems to be an unhealthy focus on the term “paid sales” in this debate. I agree 100% with Dave that the copy I read in the plane is probably the ‘most valuable’ as it gets my pretty much undivided attention for a long period of time – and I have never paid for one yet.
Last time I looked, the letters ABC stand for Audit Bureau of Circulation – not the Audit Bureau of Paid Sales. I think it is fair to include freebies in the “Gross Copies” as long as all the major ‘buckets’ of distribution (paid, subsidised and unpaid) are broken-out and reported. Of course the debate would then be around what should the the headline figure be, when free copies can bump the number up. We should focus the debate on that.
If one was to adhere to this “must be paid” logic then comparable online audience figures would be miniscule due to very few sites having pay walls and subscribers. So why is it OK for online publications to give away their product and still count it (let’s not even talk about how inflated UBs and PIs are), but not for hard-copy?
User ID not verified.
Well done to Dave for bringing a rational position to this blog.
Publishers have every right to promote their product and put it in the hands of as many potential readers as possible. Yes there should be greater transparency and we should continue to lobby for the right level of reporting, but the term “giveaway” is used far too liberally when discussing this issue. Both event based, and educational sales do require a purchasing decision in one form or another from the consumer so this needs to have some level of recognition.
Remember $3-4billion of the agency TV ad market is based on audience ratings generated by 3,800 set top boxes, the internet is largely free beyond its connection, radio is still based on an audience sample, OOH has a visual index that was done once, so there are plenty of areas where we could all dismantle the merit of every channel in the broader Media mix if we really wanted to, so why the severe stick for the print medium?
A final point I would make in this debate is in reference to the headline above as that kind of exaggeration, and ill informed rhetoric is not helpful for an industry that is trying to push through the reforms that are necessary in how circulation is reported.
User ID not verified.
Circulation numbers are an indication of one very important point: newspapers are a declining medium. That’s all we need to take away from this and anyone that wishes to argue that point is mad.
User ID not verified.
Hi John and Nick,
I agree with much of what you say.
But I’d argue that far more misleading than any headline is the way the numbers are currently presented to the market every quarter.
As John says, they are a record of circulation – not sales.
However, the trade press – myself included – base their reports on an Excel summary prepared by the ABC.
It’s a useful tool that I’m grateful to have, but it’s also potentially misleading. it refers only to the topline figures.
The newspaper owners know that few journalists go further and look at what makes up the circulation, particularly not in the time between receiving the embargoed info and release time.
That means that anyone who wants to obscure a downward trend in paid sales, can do so by increasing the other baskets. Something which appears to have happened to an unprecedented extent in the last set of numbers.
And it works – just look at last week’s coverage.
I agree that there’s an important place for sampling in all its forms. But at the moment, I’m not convinced that is always the motivation for newspaper owners.
At present there’s no single spot on an audit certificate that shows how many consumer-purchased copies of a paper have been sold. That’s ridiculous.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
In the chase for more eyeballs, advertisers are not concerned whether the SMH was bought at full price, subsidized or a giveaway. It is more about mass market reach.
Publishers themselves use inflated circulation numbers to renegotiate advertising rates.
That just leaves investors. What other industry reports statistics on reach without accompanying data on yields? Investors like tangible data that help them predict future earnings. Perhaps the ABC should look to the airline industry for inspiration. Airlines report not only the number of seats available, but also load factors (ie, the number of seats actually occupied) and the yields achieved. Enough info to clearly see that fuller planes don’t necessarily equate to more revenue.
Circulation data needs to be qualified to provide an accurate picture of underlying demand and to avoid misuse of the data. Consider the following snippet from how the ABC numbers were reported in the SMH: “The Age’s publisher and chief executive, Don Churchill, said the paper had produced solid circulation results for that quarter. “It is encouraging that The Sunday Age continues to grow, and recorded the best result for a Sunday newspaper during the period (a rise of 1.9 per cent to 231,000)”. Sounds great if taken at face value but how much of that growth was driven by give-aways?
User ID not verified.