It’s Sunday. Let me grab a coffee and a… newspaper?
Sunday titles were once gold dust for advertisers. But is this the case now? Mumbrella’s Zoe Samios assesses the value of long form content, and asks if audiences still sit back and enjoy what were once the most powerful publications in the publishing industry.
In the golden age of newspapers, if Saturdays were the rivers of gold, Sundays were the papers of influence.
At their peak, they could chart the course of the week for a TV network, a pop star or even a prime minister.
Sundays used to be the days for exclusives
“Depending on the way you look at it, audiences are either incredibly strong, or struggling. The debate around which data is accurate rages on.”
“But the Enhanced Media Metrics Australia (emma) data – a measurement method which News Corp, Bauer Media, Pacific Magazines and Fairfax Media have said they prefer”
Obviously the EMMA data is inaccurate and the AMMA tells the real story. No newspaper anywhere in the world is building it’s readership numbers.
Great article Zoe. Please keep a focus on the lack of audited figures – it is not right. The industry cares about audited figures but people are too scared to talk about it as they don’t want to impact the relationship with the publishers, so I’m glad you are still talking about it – it can’t be the new norm to just deal with the EMMA figures – it has completely messed up year on year benchmarking as the EMMA figures are so different from the audited ones. Newspapers thought that leaving the audits would allow them to tell a more positive story and keep advertisers. Yes the audited figures will show a decline but marketers understand that there is still a quality audience there for the right campaign, albeit smaller. Without audits the industry is pulling away from print at a much faster pace then they would have otherwise.
Thank goodness that the EMMA (and Morgan) data are different to AMAA.
EMMA and Morgan measure readership. AMAA measure circulated copies. Only a klutz would think that circulation = readership (two of which have commented above).
Further EMMA and Morgan are not confined to the printed copy only and include on-line readership.
It’s astounding that the first 2 commenters in this thread choose a narrow focus on the topic under discussion to try and trash the industry. They appear blissfully unaware that all they are demonstrating is their profound ignorance of how the 2 different metrics of paid circulation and readership work.
Mind you, the article itself encourages this kind of imbecility by not framing the EMMA readership figures in a similarly dynamic context to the AMAA audit. Anyone who cares to actually inform themselves can see that the EMMA readership numbers have also recorded declines in audience over the timeframe of the audit cited.
Media buyers don’t plan and buy print media based on units sold, that would be like buying digital on Unique Browsers. To measure audiences and profile them to determine a match with the product and the intended communication you need people data, which readership surveys provide.
Winston, in the end, self made metrics like EMMA and MOVE (outdoor) are absolute rubbish.
You can attempt to justify them as much as you like, but it wont change the perception of what people trust and dont trust.
What audience metrics aren’t ‘self-made’, as you put it? OzTAM? DRM? Radio ratings? Even the AMAA is publisher-funded.
All offline metrics are rubbish Winston.
TARPS, OzTam, all of them. You just have to look at the way they are actually measured to understand this.
For the last several years of digitals ascension, agencies have treated the audited print figures without a shed of circumspect consideration. Agencies overlooked prints most salient benefits and just used the year on year downward trends as a whacking stick to beat publishers with and justify massively pulling out of print and funneling funds into the shiny new world of digital. Therefore agencies shoulder some complicity in prints downward trend and its repercussions. Now agencies wag their collective fingers at print publishers for having the gaul to portray themselves favourably and in some ways equitably with digital in terms of their metrics accountability.
Funny old world.
Anyone who thinks Sunday newspapers are in any way strong is delusional. Publishers might use their own dodgy readership metrics to hide the decline but they can’t hide the destruction of the quality of their product. Readers have made their decision and walked.
Readers haven’t deserted due to quality. Readers deserted because we have so many other options for consuming content/media/news.
Quality fell because budgets fell as a result of falling circulation.
It is a downwards spiral and there is no way back up. Get out now.
Not sure if I am left-brain or right-brain dominant but my main brain tells me the Sunday editions are dreadful these days. Sensationalism, F-grade “celebrities”and scant substance.