A fallacy that pervades certain parts of the media industry is that a publication’s only true value is based on its circulation. Many question the integrity of the ‘average readers per copy’ reflected in AMPS. The truth, however, is that neither are completely accurate and that it is simplistic to accept either as complete gospel. The real question: what do you want to measure and for what reason?
Looking at the history of our local and national newspapers, a significant trend has been that the majority of titles have suffered declines in circulation while readership has been more stable. Reflecting the point recently, the Sowetan experienced a sharp decline in circulation as per the latest ABCs, but did not experience the same percentage decline in readership. Admittedly, the launch of the Daily Sun has indicated the price sensitivity in some sections of the newspaper reading market. By using a clever cover price strategy, the Daily Sun has grown its circulation rapidly and brought in new newspaper readers as well as gaining market share from the Sowetan and others. But we still need to see how the first readership figures look in comparison to the circulation. My guess is that it should have a lower reader per copy figure than the Sowetan, as it is simply more affordable.
Another important phenomenon is reflected in the strategy of The Star in the late ’80s, when the newspaper showed massive growth in daily circulation (peaking one month at 247,000). This, however, was a costly line of attack. The problem was that although the circulation was high, it was widely dispersed. The key to attracting strong advertising revenues is to own specific markets, and to provide advertisers with market penetration.
Yet circulation remains a constant concern of publishers, who scramble for it everywhere. Bulk sales and special deals with airlines, hotels and the like are commonplace and one has to question how much validity this gives to the ABCs. Circulation on these terms in no way guarantees that the product is read. It only means that an individual has acquired the copy, or that someone else acquired it on their behalf. While I’m not questioning the integrity of the audit of these figures, I’m stating that the process allows room for manipulation. After all, media planners and marketers will take the figures at face value – it is not their job to analyse below the surface.
Readership, on the other hand, is measured according to a sample size that cannot be manipulated or adjusted – the formula used for all other media. (No one measures radio audience by the number of radios sold, or TV audience by the number or growth of televisions in households). AMPs is a credible standard simply because when purchasing media, the marketer is seeking to gain maximum exposure to the target audience. If ten people read one newspaper copy, or watch one television set together, or listen to the same radio programme on the same radio, then the advertising message is exposed to them all, not just the one who happened to purchase the medium.
Interesting examples of multiple readerships are the motoring supplements of both the Citizen and The Star, where the section readerships outstrip the main body readerships. On the surface this seems irregular, but these supplements are probably left on desks, coffee tables and receptions long after the main body has been relegated to the trashcan. This is due to the editorial having a longer life than the main section, thus giving opportunity for more exposure to more people. No ABC certificate will ever tell you that.