What AdNews didn’t tell you about its own circulation
Dr Mumbo of course enjoys reading AdNews in all of its magnificent formats.
And very helpful AdNews was too in publishing a handy PDF this morning, listing the audited ABC circulations of every magazine, along with the percentage change on the previous period. Oddly though, one title appears to have dropped off the list from the one supplied by the ABC.
By a painful oversight, or perhaps a fit of modesty, AdNews deleted itself from the list. Which is a shame, as its position in the alphabet would have guaranteed it pride of place.
As a service to that magnificent organ, Dr Mumbo is happy to share the missing number.
In the six months to December 2009, AdNews’ circulation was 5,180, down 10.1% on the same period in 2008. As Mumbrella’s table shows, that was the 22nd worst fall in the country. Not that this would have had anything to do with the blackout of course, which must have been purely accidental.
Of course, the beauty of the online PDF format is that AdNews will be able to quickly amend its error so that it can offer the full service to its readers for which it is rightly acclaimed. And it will be interesting to see how AdNews covers it in its print edition.
Happy to be of service…
Update: And is if by magic…
BEFORE: The AdNews ABC table
AFTER: AdNews corrects its accidental omission
hahaha.
User ID not verified.
Kudos Tim, Kudos
User ID not verified.
Let’s face it, Ad News is tired & dowdy. The end is nigh!
User ID not verified.
Ah yes, as someone who used to work there I get extreme joy from this Tim. Nice one.
User ID not verified.
Well… looks like AdNews has ‘repaired’ that file. Just clicked the link and there it is, on the second line.
User ID not verified.
Keep fighting the good fight Timbo!
User ID not verified.
Not quite the information I was told when they were selling me space! Strange.
User ID not verified.
Oh dear, poor old AdNews.
This is the stuff blogs were made for, no room for oversights of such kind nowadays.
User ID not verified.
LOL Tim!
User ID not verified.
Now I want to see them cut their rate card 10% please
User ID not verified.
Brilliant – bring em to justice I say…
User ID not verified.
@AdamCubito: no need for such vicious comments by an Adnews alma mater.
User ID not verified.
@rockspider Not so much a vicious comment as my personal opinion – if B&T or any other magazine had done the same you would find my comment here too. That’s the beauty of opinion right?
User ID not verified.
What Muppets. Using dodgy used car salesman tactics. They should have thought it through a little more. That is if they thought about it at all. Media dinosaurs (and boy are there quite a few) need to wake up from their slumber. Not so easy to hide anymore so much better to be transparent.
User ID not verified.
Ouch. Maybe in the 70s nobody wouldve noticed… Times change.
User ID not verified.
@AdamCubito “someone check his pulse”
User ID not verified.
Adam. Bagging old employers publically reflects badly on you.
User ID not verified.
@RockSpider I’m not quite sure what you’re on about, so I have no real response to this.
@comment – Thanks for your feedback about bagging old employers. What you’ll see from my original comment is that I merely said I got joy from Tim’s post. Subsequent posters have called AdNews dowdy, old, tired, dodgy… etc. I have not indulged in name-calling.
The only difference here is that I actually put my name to my comment unlike many other gutless wonders who comment under false names because they’re too scared of being singled out.
I believe that, despite the fact I identified myself as a former employer, I still have the right to comment on a story that I enjoyed. Is that not a freedom I’m entitled to?
I think so… and it won’t stop me from commenting in the future.
User ID not verified.
@AdamCubito RockSpiders shouldn’t throw stones in glass houses
User ID not verified.
AdNews really need to reevaluate how they conduct their business and take a leaf out of the mumbrella book – and place more emphasis online. Their website is old-fashioned and boring. Although it is updated daily it doesn’t have a dynamic feel and their daily email updates are outdone by B&T’s PDF newsletter style daily news wrap-up. Most agency types don’t really have time to do anything more than have a quick flick through AdNews or B&T anymore and within my office most news announcements come courtesy of the B&T newsletter which seems to frequently beat them to the punch – take note AdNews, totally online revamp required.
User ID not verified.
They have been telling advertisers about an online revamp for months (a lot of months!). We have yet to see it.
User ID not verified.
-10% year on year is pretty ugly news for AdNews
While B&T mag runs on a different audit (CAB), their most recent audit figures are below – a year on year decline of just -0.4%
B&T Sep 2009 CAB audit = 5,653
B&T Sep 2008 CAB audit = 5,678
User ID not verified.
And another thing while I’m at it …
Just noticed the AdNews logo proudly states “Australia’s top selling advertising, marketing and media magazine”. But hang on … looking at the most recent audits:
AdNews = 5,180 (Dec 09)
B&T = 5,653 (Sep 09)
I’m calling the ACCC right away 🙂
User ID not verified.
@Adam Joseph “top-selling” = all copies paid, ie what an ABC audit measures. A CAB audit includes unpaid copies. Therefore the B&T figure might well include 2000 copies which are given away to students etc which is why I believe B&T call themselves the “highest-circulating” advertising mag..
User ID not verified.
@observer
Good point, but I think you’ll find the copies “given away” actually go to members of the Australian Marketing Institute who have to opt-in to receive B&T when they sign up for AMI membership. I speak from experience – been through the process.
It’s misleading to imply most of these give-aways go to “students” as I believe most go to professional marketers. Also, the paid-copies argument needs to factor in that with B2B mags it’s usually the employer that pays, not the individual.
User ID not verified.
I think its pretty ignorant to think that a magazine which is supposedly targeted to savvy media people, would think to get away with such an obvious media tactic. Its like calling open season on themselves, as if they haven’t realised that media people have nothing better to do (sorry Tim) other then delve into every nuisance of claims, then its no wonder that they have dropped 10%, they don’t know who they are talking to
User ID not verified.