Content area
Full text
Subs are publishers' hidden strength
RE: "Circ scandal rips through magazines," (AA, Aug. 29)
I don't know if the recent restatements of paid magazine circulation by Martha Stewart Living, Family Circle and House Beautiful is "a circulation scandal that is tearing through the industry like an 'apocalypse,'" but I do believe it is an opportunity for smart, forward-thinking publishers to rethink their circulation sources and disclosure standards. One of the most important trends in advertising is the requirement that advertisers show higher levels of accountability for advertising expense to their shareholders. This is not a short-term trend or one likely to go away.
Magazines, more than broadcast TV, cable or radio, actually have an inherent ability to be more accountable. What is more measurable and indicative of interest than the considered purchase of a single copy of a magazine on the newsstand or a high-priced, direct-to-publisher sold subscription with a name, address (and usually other relevant marketing information) associated with it? Why not take advantage of that? Instead of complaining about how advertisers unfairly hold magazines to a standard they don't also hold TV, I would do everything possible to reinforce those standards. Why not make magazines the gold standard?
Smart magazine publishers should wake up and eliminate the circulation sources that have no credibility beyond propping up an inflated rate base (i.e., negative remit agents, bulk sub sales based on check swaps, etc.) and provide a higher disclosure standard than even today's ABC requirements.
It's about accountability in relation to other media choices. Magazines should use their inherent advantage in accountability with an advertising industry...