‘Save B&T’: Former publisher urges title to return to AMAA audit for brand credibility
Former Misfits Media partner Jeremy Knibbs has called on his former publication B&T to return to the Audited Media Association of Australia (AMAA), to ensure brand credibility and transparency.
Knibbs has a long-term association with B&T, having been part of the publication’s parent group Misfits Media before leaving just over a year ago, and before that being CEO of the magazine’s previous owner Reed Business Information for more than a decade.
In a lengthy post published on LinkedIn, Knibbs said B&T’s decision to withdraw from the audit meant clients would not have independently verifiable data to assess reach and make judgements on advertising costs for the title.
B&T says it isn’t interested in Knibbs’ opinion
The decision by B&T to exit the audit has left AdNews as the last remaining media and marketing industry print title to have its circulation verified under the AMAA’s CAB (Circulations Audit Board) metric. The audit aims to give advertisers third party verification that the publisher is circulating the number of copies of an edition that it claims. AdNews does not audit its digital audience.
Misfits Media’s exit from the print audit follows the coordinated departures from the AMAA’s paid circulation audits by Bauer Media, Pacific Magazines and News Life Media last December.
In a post on LinkedIn, Knibbs said leaving the CAB audit and the AMAA as a business-to-business media group suggested the company was “not prepared to be transparent” with clients and how many print editions are distributed.
“Some publishers do make this decision. I’m sure it is a hard decision to make. Invariably they are choosing to blur information to their advertisers which isn’t an easy business path for a publisher to take if they’ve audited for years,” Knibbs wrote.
B&T should return to the audit, argues Knibbs
“But if you are a publisher who covers the media business and you do it, you are taking a massive gamble surely. Where is your authority to write anything about the media industry going forward if you don’t follow the unwritten rules of good media?
“A CAB audit for a single print title publishing only six times per year costs about $500. A very small sum for advertiser peace of mind.”
He said while he understood the “feeble” reason – readership is a more relevant measure – for consumer publishers to exit the audit, the same could not be said for trade titles.
Knibbs went on to point out B&T’s last recorded circulation figure is 16,000 but they use the CAB logo to state the last audited circulation is 14,951 – which was from early 2016.
“So B&T has used the audit organisation brand but didn’t end up auditing in the period it used that brand to sell ads, for more than a year. Its last year of circulation, therefore, has no independent or credible verification. We just have to trust them, retrospectively.
“They would be leaving themselves wide open by exiting audits in this manner if they haven’t distributed what they advertised. A smart client just needs to request their print or mailing invoices from the period and if they refuse to provide it, then the gig is up,” he wrote.
He also hit out at the AMAA, saying the organisation needs to close its loopholes.
“They should make it a part of an audit contract that if you exit and have been using their logo to advertise an ‘audited circulation’, then you need to prove the circulation for the period you used the logo – even if you leave. Or suffer the consequences,” he said.
“People like to dismiss the AMAA and print these days as not significant. But how is this any different to the issues of trust that are now swirling around digital advertising transparency?
“Publishers blurring transparency on print distribution data is as bad as programmatic vendors attempting to say there has been no issue. They look like dinosaurs because they are acting like dinosaurs. And when the media acts like dinosaurs we get treated like dinosaurs,” he added.
Knibbs said he did not believe B&T’s print edition would be a major proportion of their income, but said the publication was not dead and the owners could rescue the brand should they wish.
“It is still a good brand. It has a strong heritage and still has lots of followers,” he said.
“They can join the AMAA again, and declare their circulation properly to their advertisers and the market. They would wear a bit of shit initially for this maybe, but potentially far more admiration for admitting they have been wrong. Which I think they have been. And taking a leadership role. Something media is in short supply of at the moment when it comes to credibility on transparency.
“Save B&T. Restore its AMAA audit. And its brand credibility.”
In the same piece, Knibbs also challenged the magazine’s panel of industry advisers to show an interest. He wrote: “The 2017 B&T media kit has no less than 24 industry luminaries, listed on their editorial board in this same media kit. They include people like Russel Howcroft [PwC], Adam Ferrier [Thinkerbell], James Leggett [M&C Saatchi], Peter Horgan [OMD] and Nicole Sheffield [News Corp]. They are selling B&T by being in their media kit. They are endorsing the B&T brand.”
He asked: “Does this board think it is OK that B&T, which they are promoting through their endorsement, thinks that auditing media distribution is no longer necessary these days? ”
But David Hovenden, editor in chief of B&T and CEO of The Misfits Media Company told Mumbrella the company had “zero interest” in the opinions of Knibbs.
Print is now sold on passion not reach, according to B&T
“We saw no value in remaining within the print audit. Not one advertiser has asked us about our CAB number in years,” Hovenden said.
“Print is now sold on passion, not reach and frequency. Our online audit has had a technical issue caused by the AMAA’s change to its measurement, which was frustrating for us as we continue to enjoy strong traffic.
“We expect to be back [in the digital audit] next month. The Misfits has enjoyed its most successful year ever in 2017.”
Knibbs’ full post can be read here.
Declaration of interest: Several members of Mumbrella’s staff are former B&T staffers.
“Print is now sold on passion, not reach and frequency”….?
That answers one question I posed in the post. I thought the Misfits had made a hastily and ill-conceived decision in exiting the audit but David is confirming here that it has been a deliberate and considered decision. And he gives us the logic for it.
It doesn’t sound like great logic to me.
If I’m an advertiser and B&T’s pitch is passion, how much passion cancels out actual evidence of reach?
What if they go to 10 people? Is that far enough for an advertiser to think that that this passionate print vehicle is probably a little pricey?
What is the point at which an advertiser is not happy? It’s a moot question I guess because they never get to know if they are unhappy because they never see the actual distribution.
How much for an ad sold with passion with no idea, or at least no confirmation, of actual distribution? How do you even price that? Remember an audit would cost them $500 a year. Why not pay the $500 and not go through this pain. It does not add up.
Although there is no evidence of what the editorial board thinks, knowing some of them, I find it hard to believe they would be OK with this argument.
I think taking this position as a group reporting on the media industry does start to ruin the credibility of the B&T brand and they should think it through better.
Jeremy
User ID not verified.
‘Print is now sold on passion..’ – What does that even mean?
If I want to influence media buyers and I have a budget. Why would I place my ad in a print magazine, which does not tell me it’s numbers, vs the one that does? Same with website, (although to be fair there are enough independent web tools to enable me to understand without looking at a particular audit and depending on the type of digital ad’s and targeting, I can be website agnostic anyway…)
Seems a strange decision and like Jeremy, it baffles me because I too like BandT.
User ID not verified.
Given that he didn’t leave that long ago Jeremy must know what figure they reduced circulation to. Jeremy?
User ID not verified.
A few thots:
1.) B&T is still a thing? who knew!
2.) Knibbs had some position in B&T but now they have ‘zero’ interest in his opinion? wut
3.) Audits is soooooo 90s.
4.) lack of comments speaks volumes
Jeremy, nobody cares any more.
User ID not verified.
I spent many a meeting with my colleges at Reed Australia trying to manipulate (sugar coat) the CAB audits… The only audit we were concerned with was on Australian Doctor.
We use to drop bulk copies of B&T (and many of the other titles) to businesses knowing that our databases were old.
B&T have done the right thing – they are a collection of different channels and the CAB audit is yesterday metrics
User ID not verified.
I once strongly suggested to the Reed Australia board circa 2006 to change the frequency of B&T from weekly to fortnightly (or even monthly) and dared to mention to kill the print version and go fully digital.
The reason being is that we had this elite set of Journalists and most years were happy to break even.
Do you know what we did – we change the print size, gave it a new masthead (JK signed it off – even designed it ) and continued forward – with no positive impact to the bottom line.
Then the KAPOW moment – Mumbralla was formed – the talent left, and before our very eyes – we were being eaten alive.
No worries – we could always go and acquire Mumbrealla ….
Never turned out that way.
The world has moved on from B & T and to an extent AdNews – the force has been with Mumbrealla for a long time.
JK & Misfits spat seems like that “a spat” airing your dirty underwear for no positive good for the sector they or did represent.
If I was the misfits I’d be sending one of the famous JK legal letters next Friday afternoon.
I’m happy to be interviewed …. I have good insight x
There is a place for B & T today, not the place it once had – but a place.
as for JK – I wish him well
User ID not verified.
Hi X Publisher,
On one issue, I can probably help correct your misremembering. I was the editor at the time of the B&T redesign you’re thinking of. At the time Jeremy was both CEO of the company and publisher of the title.
Jeremy was 100% supportive of the redesign, from a news-led to feature-led cover, and spent money the redesign. It was actually done by the formidable Vince Frost, including the logo. In my view Vince did a fantastic job with that logo, and it’s stood the test of time well in the decade or so since. But the logo certainly wasn’t cobbled together by Jeremy as you suggest.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Hi Tim,
You maybe correct in your recollection of the events.
However, you were not in the “directors” meeting when the business decisions were made.
From my memory JK was all over the masthead and design. I sat next to him as he said “we need the type face to be more bolder”… You can imagine how excited we were in these meetings.
No mention was made to Vince – and for us low level directors it came from the Art department c/o Rob M.
If JK sanctioned the artwork outside of the art department – we were not made aware.
and it goes to the gist of the thread – B and T was making no positive impact to the bottom line – 2 million in 2 million out…
The key was to flick it to digital which is what Mumbrealla did and which JK supported.
User ID not verified.
You may be thinking of another title in the portfolio, X Publisher, (Professional Marketing, I suspect)
The Vince Frost redesign of B&T was a lengthy process following a competitive pitch. The work was done at the agency, not at the office.
Cheers,
Tim – MUmbrella
Oh Jeremy,
We are starting to see an all too familiar pattern. Maybe you have too much time home alone these days.
You “leave” C Media and then attack their business approach to their Health brands (health brands that you nurtured & invested in )
You “leave” the MisFits and then attack their business approach to B & T (B &T a brand that you nurtured & invested in )
I think B&T’s position of not responding and thus giving you no oxygen is the right approach.
I see you were the first to comment on this article. The industry has moved on and as OldManYellsatCloud states
“Jeremy, nobody cares any more.” I would like to add “move on”
You are fueling or trying to fuel a fire that is not helpful to the guys at B & T
and seriously, we (the Industry) taught advertisers that they needed to understand about CAB – it was always smoke and mirrors and always will be in this country.
User ID not verified.
So news corp and Bayer have moved out of the CAB audit fiasco…
I’m ok for the moment to see niche titles and previous owners to have a shin dig.
But when the big end of town follow suit to an extent – then maybe just maybe the Misfits knew what was coming.
and Yes, a lot of personalities use my domain name.
My role is to keep things honest…. I like B&T but time has moved on and to see “the underwear” being ranted via LinkedIN is IMHO a cheap way to get click bait or to raise a profile that has alternative motives.
I worked under JK for 2 decades and know the patterns…
I wish the medicine republican well…
User ID not verified.