What the circ
numbers don't tell us
ABC numbers would appear to suggest declines are easing
By Diego Vasquez
Aug 10, 2010
Perhaps the question media people should be asking isn't what is the meaning of yesterday's Audit Bureau of Circulations FAS-FAX numbers, tracking consumer magazine circulation over the six months ended June 30, but rather whether the FAS-FAX are still relevant. Some believe they aren't. It's a question Jack Hanrahan, a former senior planning and buying director at Leo Burnett and OMD and currently a magazine consultant, puts forth when looking at yesterday's numbers. The bulk of the circ tracked is subscription based, but there the numbers get murky. The FAS-FAX does not distinguish between full-price subscriptions and those redeemed through giveaways, for example, nor does it account for sponsored subscriptions. And there are also e-editions to be taken into consideration, not to mention the favorable comparisons between this year and last that go unexplained (in February of last year there was a spat over fees between magazine suppliers and distributors that delayed delivery of some publications). Hanrahan, publisher of the monthly newsletter CircMatters, which focuses on the business side of magazines, talks to Media Life about what media people should demand of the FAS-FAX, what stood out during first-half 2010, and why titles that depend on celebrity names might be hitting a pothole.
What is the most interesting or surprising thing you saw with the ABC numbers?
I follow this stuff pretty closely so I can’t say that much surprised me about the set of numbers. What has surprised me and definitely interested me about the first half is how close the battle for top spot among weeklies has been. I think CircMatters was the first to pick up on this close race halfway through this reporting period.
For a while, Woman’s World was leading People, the perennial leader among weeklies. People pulled ahead with the help of the huge (2.25 million) newsstand seller on the Sandra Bullock/Jesse James breakup. Kudos though to Woman’s World for closing a gap that was 13 percent and 19 percent in the past two years to being less than 3 percent behind People in the first half of 2010.
Something to think about with this battle at the checkout each week--these two magazines are selling a combined 2.5 million copies every week. Looks like a lot of folks are still buying and reading magazines. I think the real message in this battle is for the “print is dead” crowd.
What's the most important thing media planners and buyers can take from them?
What media pros should take away from FAS-FAX is that it is about time to get this report into the 21st century. The agencies need to press for a more comprehensive set of top line numbers with the FAS-FAX release.
With all the moves to bring more transparency to magazine circulation in the past decade, little’s been done to make FAS-FAX more relevant. Why not have magazines top-line their subscription by key sub sources: individual paid, partnership subs (buy a lipstick, get a one-year subscription included), sponsored subs (someone else pays, not you), and award point subs.
There are so many ways to subscriptions are sold that the FAS-FAX numbers are close to useless when it comes to subscription sales.
What's been the biggest contributing factor to the declining newsstand numbers over the past two years? How much is people not having cash to spend on extras? Does the closure of some big magazines impact those numbers at all?
The economy has been a factor to a degree. Magazines aren’t that expensive but times are challenging for too many, and some magazine sales likely are the victim of people watching their expenditures closely.
However, single-copy sales declines long preceded this recession. The bigger factor affecting single-copy sales over time is likely to be general changes in media habits and the availability of information sources that provide what people believe is comparable information … and without cost.
Do you expect newsstand numbers will continue to decline, but more slowly, going forward? Will we get back to flat anytime soon?
I do expect them to continue to decline.
I actually think today’s numbers look better than the “real” situation. Today’s ABC FAS-FAX compares the first half of 2010 with the first half of 2009. That may give some people the feeling the decline is slowing. However, remember the newsstand distribution chaos that hit the magazine industry in early 2009. In March many monthlies (coming out mid-month) and weeklies were down.
So, in an odd way, the first half of 2009 is a “weak” period to use for comparison. That’s why I don’t buy into the “slowdown” in the single copy decline theory. It’s a tempting conclusion from the today’s release but one has to factor the chaos that hit the newsstand distribution business mid-February of 2009.
Why did subscription numbers show a sharper decline during this half? What impacts fluctuations in subscriber numbers?
As I mentioned above, I really don’t think that FAS-FAX subscription numbers tell us much. We need to wait for the “pink sheets” to get the full picture.
I believe these declines trace back to the lowering of rate bases at many ABC titles in the past year or shrinking bonuses on the guarantee for advertisers.
Which magazines' circulation is holding up best on the newsstand and why?
I was impressed by several titles but let me mention three different situations that popped out at me in going over the release today:
People StyleWatch: Now in the top 10 and nipping at the heels of Oprah. And up 15 percent versus a year ago. This relative newcomer shows the pull and the vitality of the People brand.
Clean Eating: This Canadian import grew 35 percent and sold over 135,000 copies on average. Impressive.
Women’s Health: Always a strong performer but up 10 percent over last year. Proves to me that it’s not just new titles that can accelerate growth
Which magazines are suffering the most and why?
One fact that popped when I looked at the single-copy sales numbers was how the bloom may be off the rose for some “celebrity-driven” titles. Three cases where they seem to losing steam at the newsstand: Oprah’s single-copy sales were off 16 percent, Every Day with Rachael Ray down 23 percent, and Cooking with Paula Deen slipped 9 percent.
Again, given the comparison with the “weaker” first half of 2009, this is something worth watching.
|
|
|
