How to fix misleading magazine industry measurement

It is not the first time that someone has called into question the doubtful metrics of the magazine industry in the U.S. But in a column for Folio: Henry Donahue, the CEO of Discover Media LLC, the publisher of DISCOVER magazine and discovermagazine.com makes a refreshing stab at both diagnosis and cure.

• He reiterates the oft-related complaint that the Publishers Information Bureau data on ad pages and revenue is bogus and "bear only a fleeting resemblance to reality", because the revenue figure is based on published rate card data that can be as much as 50% higher than actual revenue. His suggestion? Dump the revenue data. (At least in Canada Masthead magazine's similar tables, based on LNA data, has tried to reflect discounts, bonuses etc. by calculating revenue at 25% off rate card.)

• He knocks ABC's twice-yearly FAS-FAX circulation report which leads media planners to pay attention to two, misleading pieces of data: which magazines grew their total circulation; and which magazines missed rate base.(Canadian magazines don't generally promise a minimum rate base or publish such a number.) In both cases, publishers can directly control their numbers by paying for verified and/or public place subscriptions. His suggestion? Concentrate on paid (instead of total) subscriptions and single copy sales, "the two metrics that relate directly to the economic health of a title."

• He criticises the methodology of Samir "Mr. Magazine" Husni's tally of new magazine launches as being well-meaning but misleading. He says that 90% of what are identified as "new" are newsstand one-shot, spinoffs from established titles. His solution? Count only new magazines with their own bipad (barcode). "A new bipad shows that a publisher is investing in a new magazine with its own distribution profile."