Sen ( read comment here ) has drawn my attention to this “straight on the bull’s eye” article of Pramath ( Raj Sinha ) published in this Wednesday’s ( September 23rd ) issue of MINT, which I seem to have missed in the flurry of writing blogs. I agree with practically everything Pramath has said in his piece “Time to grow up ..” ( click here to read the full piece) – and some of it we too have already touched upon in a few of our earlier posts (e.g. Is it only about Eye-balls click here to read ).
Though’ very direct, Pramath – being his urbane and sophisticate self – has still pulled a few punches. He says advertisers – “subsidize” publications. While this may be true in rest of the world – in India it has gone a few steps further. From a situation of 80:20 mix of Advertising to Circulation – thanks to deep discounts, jodis and gift subscription schemes most newspapers have gone to “negative” realization on Circulation (net of Trade Commissions). In the process – publications have become subservient (I am tempted to use a stronger term) to advertisers and Media Buying Agencies.
Vanita Kohli writes in her book “The Indian Media Business” (Page 39, 2nd Edition ): “……It is routine for advertisers to pull out entire campaigns if there is even a mildly objective reportage on them”. Those of us who have worked in publications know the extent to which this practiced and how publishers (with a few rare exceptions – that too selectively applied) tamely give in to such pressure plays.
I had written about my newspaper vendor not bothering to collect his bills for months - because now he earns much more from trade commissions and schemes. The other day, a friend from the circulation department of a leading newspaper group was telling me, how they no longer see the “dips” in sales during holiday seasons as before. This is because there is a “negative incentive” for the reader to ‘stop’ the copies – while the family is on holiday, as with the price they pay for the paper being next to nothing they would lose out much more from “Raddi” realization.
It was an interesting realization for me (a fact which one always knew but never thought of it) that, one cannot compute the actual “all India” circulation of practically any newspaper group from the published ABC figures, because at any point in time – some edition or other of theirs will be out of ABC.
Though’ very direct, Pramath – being his urbane and sophisticate self – has still pulled a few punches. He says advertisers – “subsidize” publications. While this may be true in rest of the world – in India it has gone a few steps further. From a situation of 80:20 mix of Advertising to Circulation – thanks to deep discounts, jodis and gift subscription schemes most newspapers have gone to “negative” realization on Circulation (net of Trade Commissions). In the process – publications have become subservient (I am tempted to use a stronger term) to advertisers and Media Buying Agencies.
Vanita Kohli writes in her book “The Indian Media Business” (Page 39, 2nd Edition ): “……It is routine for advertisers to pull out entire campaigns if there is even a mildly objective reportage on them”. Those of us who have worked in publications know the extent to which this practiced and how publishers (with a few rare exceptions – that too selectively applied) tamely give in to such pressure plays.
I had written about my newspaper vendor not bothering to collect his bills for months - because now he earns much more from trade commissions and schemes. The other day, a friend from the circulation department of a leading newspaper group was telling me, how they no longer see the “dips” in sales during holiday seasons as before. This is because there is a “negative incentive” for the reader to ‘stop’ the copies – while the family is on holiday, as with the price they pay for the paper being next to nothing they would lose out much more from “Raddi” realization.
It was an interesting realization for me (a fact which one always knew but never thought of it) that, one cannot compute the actual “all India” circulation of practically any newspaper group from the published ABC figures, because at any point in time – some edition or other of theirs will be out of ABC.
The Readership Surveys make up another story altogether. NRS, which was actually a creation of the publishers themselves ( a joint initiative of INS and ABC) has been given almost a quiet burial (though’ I believe there are some murmurs of reviving it again – because IRS is becoming inconvenient for some ). We remember the shameful litigations that happened over it – after editors (of the same publications which had filed the ‘proxy’ law-suits) had written signed pieces upholding NRS as the “gold-standard” of the industry ( when their papers were trounced by competition in the IRS ). Then it was amazing to see a section in the INS going to embrace the IRS - over-ruling objections from some industry veterans ( IRS was seen as a rival survey – as it was the product of a reactionary move by advertisers and agencies against the NRS) - in what looked like a Indo-Pak peace mission to the Attari Border - only to denounce it later.
So, is the Advertiser getting fooled by the “smoke and mirrors” (to borrow Pramath’s term), which we hold before them. I am not sure. I think both advertisers and media buyers have become much more savvy to separate the chaff from the claims and have developed their own metrics ( however, approximate they might be) to get a sense of the real numbers. A case in point would be the very publication in which Pramath’s piece appeared. For all it’s tall claims of being the undisputed No 2 Financial paper in the country with a circulation of 120k and readership of 1.6 (higher than ET – read Samil’s Comment on the ‘I-Pod Effect’ click here) you have to only turn its pages to see the volume of ads it is managing to get after 18 months of its launch.
So it could well be that in trying to fool others, the publishers are being a bit “clever by half” and might end up fooling themselves. Something, I feel, the PE bankers who are waiting in queue to be part of the ‘big growth story’ of Indian Print media should take note of.
Let’s debate this further. For the moment I just wanted all of you to read this very positively provocative article.
So, is the Advertiser getting fooled by the “smoke and mirrors” (to borrow Pramath’s term), which we hold before them. I am not sure. I think both advertisers and media buyers have become much more savvy to separate the chaff from the claims and have developed their own metrics ( however, approximate they might be) to get a sense of the real numbers. A case in point would be the very publication in which Pramath’s piece appeared. For all it’s tall claims of being the undisputed No 2 Financial paper in the country with a circulation of 120k and readership of 1.6 (higher than ET – read Samil’s Comment on the ‘I-Pod Effect’ click here) you have to only turn its pages to see the volume of ads it is managing to get after 18 months of its launch.
So it could well be that in trying to fool others, the publishers are being a bit “clever by half” and might end up fooling themselves. Something, I feel, the PE bankers who are waiting in queue to be part of the ‘big growth story’ of Indian Print media should take note of.
Let’s debate this further. For the moment I just wanted all of you to read this very positively provocative article.
2 comments:
Dear Mr. Ghose,
We put across to IRS on how magazines ( specially weeklies) always seemed victimised by this survey. There are markest where there is circulation but no readership. We have represented the same twice during my stint in Businessworld but this did not help much. Any corrective action woulld take at lease 18 months to show effect and I feel sorry for the Ad Sales teams who remains at the mercy of the media buyers and planners.
Rgds
Naty
Post a Comment