Verified? Will advertisers say "So what?"

For years, the almighty nature of "paid" circulation, particularly among major U.S. magazines was somewhat inflated by things that counted as paid, but weren't; things like "public place copies" which were neither sponsored nor paid, but found in doctor's offices and places like that. Well, last year, the Audit Bureau of Circulations decreed it would no longer allow such copies to be called "paid", but rather "verified". However, after so many years of hyping the importance of paid, and only paid, magazines (to the chagrin of controlled publishers), has the industry been hoist on its own petard?

Here's an audio conversation about the situation, between Ad Age's Hoag Levin and Nat Ives, the media reporter for Ad Age.

(It's important to note that the "total audience" approach now being touted by big U.S. publishers is one that Canadian consumer publishers have been much quicker to adopt. And it is important to realize, too, that this is something of a tempest in a teapot, since total "verified" circ for all ABC-audited magazines is less than 3%. Still, as Ives points out, advertisers may have their revenge for all those years of pricing based on the golden value of "paid".)