The Magazine Publishers of America has put considerable effort into a bold new plan that would measure magazines by their audiences, rather than circulation, the idea being to put publications on a par with TV and the internet in the depth and timeliness of data they provide about their audiences.

But media buyers, while they'd appreciate the additional data, have their doubts as to whether the new system would necessarily improve the case for magazines as an ad medium.

That's the finding of a poll Media Life posted yesterday titled "Weigh in on the MPA's bold new plan."

The question: How much do magazines really suffer because they don't invite easy comparisons to other media, particularly TV, in terms of how they are measured?

Just 17 percent thought magazines were indeed hurt, agreeing with this statement: "Quite a bit, actually, with so much emphasis these days on buying media across different platforms."

But a far larger share, 40 percent, thought it wasn't really a big problem, agreeing with this statement: "Some. When it comes to media buying, any additional information will be of some worth. The real issue is how credible it is."

And the largest share, 43 percent, thought any hurt was minimal. They agreed with this statement: "Not much, really. Good magazines sell themselves quite well on traditional data. They're brand steam engines. Weak magazines will simply look all that much weaker with more data on their audiences."

Most thought the biggest failing of the existing system of measurement was the lack of timeliness in the availability of data on circulation and readership.

The question: When you consider the existing system, what do you see as its biggest failings?

Nearly half of respondents, 46 percent, cited the lack of timeliness, while 32 percent cited a lack of credibility, agreeing with this statement: "We're flooded with so much data as it is, but much of it is conflicting."

The remainder complained that the existing system offered no way to tell whether readers were seeing their clients' ads and responding to them.

But readers were optimistic that most publishers and media buyers would embrace the new system of measurement.

Media Life asked: One reason past efforts to improve magazine measurement failed was that publishers resisted. Will they go along with this latest effort?

Nearly two thirds, 62 percent, thought they would, agreeing with this statement: "Yes. Times have changed, and publishers have had time to see the internet take business away on the power of the data online publishers can offer advertisers. They'll buy into the program."

The remainder thought not, agreeing with this statement: "No. Essentially you are asking publishers to provide yet more data on who's reading their titles. They already complain they're having to give up too much."

As for media buyers, two thirds of readers thought they'd go for the new system, agreeing with the statement: "They'll appreciate all the added data."

The remainder thought otherwise, agreeing with this statement: "Buyers may talk of wanting change but they are just like publishers in one regard; they'll resist change when the time comes."

Media Life then asked readers to say what changes they would like to see in the current measurement system. The question: If you were advising the MPA, what changes would you most like to see?

That led to a range of responses. Here are some:

"Get back to reality and stop trying to sell yourself as a medium you're not."

"Find strength in the magazine world that no one else can compare to."

"Any effort to position magazines versus the internet is bound to fail badly. The internet is a low-cost, direct-response medium. Magazines don't want to go in that direction. If anything, there should be an effort to ensure true comparability of publisher data across magazines, so that planners can look at two surveys and be able to compare, without going to an intermediary like MRI."

"Magazines ARE brand steam engines... Display ads online are not as credible or effective. Increasing your good efforts to prove the 1-2 punch of mags w/ online: print or branding - internet for transactions."

"They [the MPA] have to do a FAR better job of promoting their research in the trade community. Past efforts have been methodologically sound but presented in a horribly pedestrian and ineffective way."

"Cut the lead-time for magazine ads. The business climate and advertising strategies are changing faster than ever, and we need media that can allow faster response through shorter lead times."

"More data is good for making an informed recommendation, but circulation must also be included. I want to see circ and readership. And quicker is always best."