The great thing about the web is you can always add on to stories after deadline — and that’s what I’m doing here. I wrote a media column for Bizcommunity this week on the many shades if grey that go into the workings of Amps readership figures (the full-year 2009 Amps figures were released by Saarf recently). Click here to read the column.
Unfortunately, I only managed to track down top media planner Gordon Muller after deadline. Muller used to be the MD of OMD, one of the biggest media planning firms in South Africa, and now heads up his own media consultancy, GSM Quadrant.
I think his insights into Amps are really valuable so here we go, Happy Hacks:
Gill: This week I’m looking into AMPs and how newspapers tend to trumpet their rise in AMPS figures (the Sunday Times this last Sunday is a good example — I’ve attached their press release). But my feeling is it is totally useless to measure a newspaper’s audience by using AMPS alone and that you also need to weigh up their ABC figures to get a more accurate picture.
Gordon Muller
Gordon: If we can’t use AMPS readership figures, then it is no wonder that the print media industry keeps flirting with the idea of producing their own readership survey. Readership figures are absolutely vital to evaluating print media because they provide two things which we cannot get from ABC figures a) Demographic/ Branded/ Even psychographic and attitudinal profiles and b) the metrics we need to calculate reach and frequency which are fundamental pillars of any media strategy.
The problem with AMPS readership figures is the filter used to define readership: (Reading or paging through means that “you personally read or paged through all or part of a copy, regardless of whether that copy belongs to you and regardless of the venue where the reading took place”. Even if I glance at a magazine for 1 second, whilst standing in the CNA, then I am a reader. This leads to the ridiculously high readership levels in AMPS. Sunday Times has 10 readers per copy; Sowetan 12; Daily Sun 10. Daily News has 15 readers per copy . Men’s Health 15 and Drum 19? And all of them with equal value to the advertiser? I don’t think so.
Gill: Also my sense from the newspaper editors I know is that few understand what goes into AMPS, which is rather complex, and therefore don’t really have an accurate idea of how their newspapers are performing.
Gordon: Not sure I agree with this on several levels. AMPS isn’t that complex and most senior editors do know what their readership is. The problem is in not knowing the value of that readership. You can offer me 19 readers per copy but 9 times out of ten , what I really want is to talk to the 1 or 2 primary readers. Publishers have come to the conclusion that more readers, irrespective of where they come from and what they offer advertisers, is better than fewer, targeted readers. That’s where they are confused. If editors don’t know how their titles are performing then they should be speaking to their sales and marketing teams to find out.
Gill: Then you have the odd situation where Media24 really seems to push ABCS while Avusa likes to project AMPS. What, in your opinion, should advertisers be looking for as indicators of value in print titles?
Gordon: It’s not odd at all. It’s media sales and it’s all done with mirrors. You use what you feel places your titles in the best possible light. This actually pertains to an entirely different issue. If you look at Media24, they don’t actually push ABCs at all. What they push is their CORE CIRCULATION. There’s a fundamental difference between total circulation and core. In a nutshell, Media24 is trying to push QUALITY of circulation whilst Sunday Times is trying to push VOLUME of readers. Mazda sells performance and Toyota sell reliability. Who’s right? They both are. It’s about selling what you think is best for your brand.
Gill: And then the last thing I wanted to bounce off you is that Saarf believes that more people are reading titles but less frequently based on the AIR figures but they say they don’t deal with the “why” — only the “what”. Why do you think this might be the case?
Gordon: Reading fewer titles makes sense in a recession. There is less money to buy a multi print media mix. This would manifest itself in buying only your favourite title (rather than the 2 or 3 you might have previously enjoyed) or even your favourite title less often.
Click here to go to Gordon’s Khulumamedia blog.
About gillm
Comments