Media buyers demand answers over ‘inconsistencies’ in EMMA print readership data
Maxus’s Nick Keenan
The managing director of Maxus Nick Keenan says Australia’s major print publishers need to prove to media agencies that the rising readers per copy and rising print readerships for a number of titles being claimed in the first year on year EMMA data are actually accurate.
Keenan’s comments came after an analysis by Mumbrella of the first year-on-year EMMA data showed the number of readers per copy (RPC) rising on almost every print newspaper and magazine, with several mastheads reporting print readerships rising including News Corp’s Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, Courier Mail and Fairfax’s Canberra Times.
These increases came despite double digit declines in print circulations for nearly every newspaper and magazine masthead’s print editions.
“There was always the rule of three (for newspapers) that’s the pass around factor,” said Keenan, in response to rises that have The Age’s RPC grow to 6. “If they are going to show significant readership increases that are at odds with copy sales then they need to come in and explain the methodology — because we are not buying it.”
Bauer’s ‘lads mag’ Zoo Weekly went from an RPC of 9.44 last year, to 15.44 in the latest round of data.
Former News Corp group sales manager Keenan noted that even if “pass around” copies or so called secondary readers in public places such as coffee shops were increasing, those readers were less engaged.
“Yes in public spaces cafes, bars etc. because they are buying less papers, you see people rush for them so I think the pass around is far higher,” he said, “But if someone stops buying something then they are a less engaged reader, because they have decided they can do without that platform for their news.
“It seems extraordinarily high to (in some cases) double one’s pass around rate. It used to be one copy to three readers.”
A number of other media buyers Mumbrella spoke to shared Keenan’s concerns about the rises in EMMA’s print readership numbers, however most declined to be seen as criticising the publisher funded EMMA, which but compiled independently by research company Ipsos, on the record.
One trading director of a major media agency, citing the 15 copies per reader being claimed Zoo Weekly, said he questioned the reliability of the EMMA numbers.
“If it’s passed on and you haven’t paid for it what’s your attention to it?,” said the executive, who declined to be named. “It’s not the same as sitting down with the newspapers on a Sunday. If its 15 times in the case of Zoo Weekly it may be that on a building site in the toilet, but I wouldn’t want to be the last reader.”
Another senior media agency executive who focused on research and audience measurement said: “The methodology and some of the data outputs are frankly pretty hard to swallow.
“The thing we need is consistency and the fact is whatever EMMA thinks they can throw at Roy Morgan they are not in the race as far as the quality of the survey is concerned.”
Media analyst Steve Allen, who has been a long time support of the incumbent currency Roy Morgan, which EMMA was set up to challenge, noted that anomalies were not new but that they raise questions about whether EMMA’s methodology was better than its rival.
Commenting on the rises for the Telegraph, Herald Sun, Courier Mail, NT News and Canberra Times’s print readerships Allen said: “These anomalies occur, they have always occurred, but given the one of the newspaper industry one of their staunch criticisms of Morgan was these inconsistencies you have to wonder how far they have progressed.”
Allen also questioned where each edition was on average being read by six people, noting the consumer shift away from print, adding: “We are seeing an industry currency that seems to be going in the wrong direction. You can’t imagine an industry fronting up with the amount of millions of dollars they have had to, and have a survey that didn’t have favourable results.
“However these numbers are starting to defy gravity.”
Keenan who worked at News Corp sales from 2005 to 2008, said the publishers were having the wrong conversation when its comes to both readership and circulation and were possibly miscalculating the pass around factor.
“The thing that this ignores is that the bulk of newspapers were households where the paper would be shared within the house, and you got your usual three pass around. That’s the bulk of it, so if there are less copies then yes there is less (print) readership,” he said.
“It’s is an irrelevant argument. What we want to understand is what happened last week.”
Keenan instead argued they should be trading more day to day and seeking to capitalise more on the ebbs and flows in the news cycle as rival mediums do.
“We all know the audience is growing across digital, mobile and newspapers, but when you look at it the problem we have as buyers is we don’t buy that way,” said Keenan, who within Maxus is creating his own sentiment analysis program the ESI sentiment index which examines headline sentiment across a number of major publishers.
“The publishers don’t get it. The readership/circulation argument is irrelevant. I don’t care about the (total) audience — I care what happened last Thursday and was there a sudden surge because of Baby Gammy and the 60 Minutes special and was everyone outraged? I could have traded that because there would have been a ground swell of audience.”
Nic Christensen
” I could have traded that because there would have been a ground swell of audience.”
-Classy
User ID not verified.
Speaking of I don’t buy that….”pass around” copies or so called secondary readers in public places such as coffee shops were increasing, those readers were less engaged.”
I’ve never understood why the secondary reder is less engaged that the primary purchaser…perhaps you can prove that Nick? Is that a researched statement, gut feel..or a buyers technique
User ID not verified.
Incredible. How stupid do they think media agencies are. Everything they publish goes against pure logic. I wish they would focus all this energy in providing meaningful information for us to use instead of this c#!p.
User ID not verified.
Well said Nick. About time someone stood up to the numbers.
User ID not verified.
Billy C while the sound bite does read like a poor choice of words the point in context was the ability to trade the uplift in news cycle was the point (regardless of what the news event is that is lifting traffic)
When it comes to baby Gammy I am as outraged as anyone at the abandonment of that little boy! I can guarantee you I know first hand what it is to stand up for a child with a disability!!!
User ID not verified.
Why don’t we start publishing EMMA’s “pass around” figures alongside actual sales. . . Surely this would keep everyone happy, except, of course, the newspapers and magazines whose actual sales are diving.
User ID not verified.
Hmm…interesting take on things but a big concern for me is people talking about the numbers coming from ‘publishers’. And talking about wanting to see ‘actual sales’ as if they don’t understand what ‘independently audited’ means. Who are these people with all these opinions and accusations and clearly, no experience or qualifications to make them?
Having said all that…the numbers are collected by Ipsos. Ipsos are one of the biggest and most credible researchers in the world. THE WORLD. I cannot believe it would be in their interests to fudge numbers (despite what the grey-haired Roy Morgan acolytes will try to spin for you).
Now I’m not saying I understand why the numbers are showing what they are.
But given Ipsos’ market position. they should be capable of telling a strong and credible story about the numbers they are coming up with. So why are the perceptions of the data capture and the marketing of EMMA missing the mark so badly?
User ID not verified.
Why have the figures supplied by EMMA (the media’s OWN measurement organisation) gone up.
Gee I wonder.
User ID not verified.
I grabbed a free copy of the AFR getting onto a plane last week.
Later, in my haste to apply milk to granola, I accidentally saturated the paper. Handing the ruin item to a stewardess, my heart bled for the pass on readers deprived of reading Rear Window that particularly tragic day.
User ID not verified.
@A print guy. None of the above.. its common sense. If you buy something with your own cash, you are going to be more engaged in the item you bought than a guy who is waiting at reception for a meeting who happens to be browsing through a mag.
Unless you work in print, in which case you’re probably oblivious to facts, as you have ably demonstrated.
User ID not verified.
Media buyers may be loathsome bottom-feeders, but quelle surprise that the new readership analysis of print publications would… wait for it… favour print publications! You could knock me down with a rolled up copy of Monday’s Australian.
User ID not verified.
The Tele’s spin on these readership numbers today was, as always, shameful. Telling their readers they are no.1 and smashing the SMH (out comes the inferior newspaper syndrome again that contributed to the Mike Carlton photoshop disaster), when the SMH has over 1 million more readers in total. Deny, deny, deny!
User ID not verified.
Media agencies on EMMA – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp9eClImVxw
User ID not verified.
Someone needs to pass these figures to the ACT Government.
The Canberra Times is basically a ward of the state. Without the wall-to-wall local government spend, I doubt it would have any advertisers left.
Strangely, it’s rarely critical of what local government does.
User ID not verified.
If the broad trend in Morgan is not similar to EMMA you have to ask why. And on the IPSOS question: why is the trend in the EMMA data in the opposite direction to their data for business readers (the elite audience research, which is annual)?
Maybe EMMA counts people who get smacked in the face by the free newspapers blowing down the streets and airport waiting areas?
User ID not verified.
If someone gave you a free car would you be less engaged with the car? If someone gave you a free holiday would you be less engaged with the holiday? If someone gave you a free TV would you be less engaged with the TV?
If you figured out how to get something for free which you used to pay for – say music or movies, would you be less engaged?
Intelligent Marketers are aware that savvy consumers have enabled themselves to access desirable content for free, it’s a trend we’re all aware of and party to, why are you so suprised consumers are applying this trend to accessing print?
User ID not verified.
Magazine publishers can tell you down to the exact copy how many have been sold, and on a regular basis. Its all Barcoded and they get weekly (maybe even daily) updates from the retailers
They don’t do that because of the ramifications it would have. A monthly Magazine with an official circulation average over 6 months of 100k (for arguments sake) could easily have a couple of issues within that period of 60/70,000 and one or two at 100,000 and above. Little bit of magic with sampling, some subs added from an event, few carryovers from last Circ period etc etc and voila 100,000 circ again, despite the fact that one or two issues only sold 60% of that…
User ID not verified.
Agree @guy1 – whether you pay for something or whether you get it free doesn’t affect your level of engagement – You are interested in things that are relevant to you.
Will MCN be in market soon touting that ads on STV are more engaging than ads on FTV because we pay for it??
User ID not verified.
@Guy1
But we are not talking about cars, nor holiday’s. We are talking about printed publications. (I guess that a hire car or a time share gets a lot of further use…?)
Scenario:
I love snowboarding. I decide to buy a snowboarding magazine. A random picks it up, (erm… because I left it behind in a cafe?). The random isn’t in to snowboarding, flicks through, doesn’t pay much attention “coffee’s ready!” and fcks off.
Readership figures have always been questionable. These EMMA print readership figures are highly questionable.
User ID not verified.
Why such hate on print? I don’t get it – is it because it’s the only form of advertising that’s actually paid for and kept, displayed on coffee tables or even framed, while all media buyers are still climbing over each other for spam-like banner ads?
Why isn’t there an audit of TV sets sold – why are only viewers measured? Why aren’t the number of PC or laptop’s sold audited for digital? Why aren’t the number of mobiles sold reported quarterly and then picked apart to show the benefits or disadvantages of mobile advertising?
How engaged is someone with a banner ad or a Facebook recommendation that they see while quickly checking for that enormous electricity bill they were expecting during a 5 min work break whilst their mind is on the next meeting, budgets or office politics, constantly listening for the telltale footsteps of the manager who is just about to make your life a living hell vs when they are sitting on a cloud-like sofa with all worries and stresses distant memories, the sound of their children happily playing in the backyard, the smells of a recently enjoyed brunch lingering in the air, the sun streaming through the open window, a coffee in hand and a magazine or paper in the other?
Seriously!
User ID not verified.
@LB – we(as in consumers) dont pay to watch ads on STV. We pay for sport, or movies or whatever. So no, your analogy/scenario doesn’t work.
But you have actually made my point when you say “You are interested in things that are relevant to you”. Exactly!
If I willingly buy something, it is generally accepted I am interested in the paper/mag/whatever. But If i haven’t paid for it, sure there MAY be someone you pass it to that’s interested, or half-interested, or perhaps not interested at all and is just passing the time flicking through pages waiting for a coffee – whatever – this is where the readership figures become rubbery because we are now ASSUMING the same levels of reader interest from a passed around (free) copy of a mag.
No one’s saying there is no value in a secondary reader, but equally i don’t think you can honestly believe all 15 readers of Snowboarding magazine who flicked through it whilst waiting for coffee, were equally engaged as the first guy who bought it and left it at the coffee shop.
Flicking vs Reading.
User ID not verified.
I watched the tele at my local coffeeshop this morning, by the time I’d finished my muffin five people had looked through that paper. This isn’t going to cover higher readership but surely pass-on rate must have been underestimated for years by ignoring people who have jobs.
My commentry from Nick Keenan types too please. Steve Allen gets quoted because Steve Allen gets quoted, due respect but there have to be 40 more eligible people out there who can say something.
User ID not verified.
Have any of these people seen the mainstream radio methodology?
Outdoor?
Emma is a house of bricks compared.
User ID not verified.
Jetstar’s in-flight magazine, which sits in the seat pockets of heavily booked planes, claims 8 readers per copy.
Yet Zoo Weekly, sold to single readers, claims nearly double this at 15.24 RPC.
Can someone please explain – how can this be?
User ID not verified.
So, someone who pays for a newspaper is far more “engaged” with the sale price of laundry powder (page 15), than someone who gets the paper for free? Really?
The things you learn.
User ID not verified.
@Poor Try
What if someone gives you a free snowboarding magazine, would you be less engaged with the content?
If you download a song, for free, are you less engaged with the song when it plays because it was free?
I think we all agree more people read magazines than buy them.
I also think we agree people like free stuff. If you’ve ever been to an event with goodie bags you’ll know people go crazy for free stuff, even bags full of marketing collateral from your clients.
User ID not verified.